Commons Sitting of 27 May 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  THE NEWTOWNARDS UNION SCHOOLMASTER.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Inspector, Colonel Spaight, has reported that the schoolmaster of Newtownards Union and the clerk of Lisburn Union, the latter it is stated being eighty-four years of age, are unfit to discharge the duties of their respective offices; and in view of the responsible and important nature of the duties which the schoolmaster and clerk of a Union are required to discharge, whether the Local Government Board will call upon these officers to tender their resignations; and, if not, what action do they propose to take in regard to their Inspector's Report?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): It appears that the schoolmaster at Newtownards is suffering from bronchitis following upon an attack of influenza, and he has been granted leave of absence on the recommendation of the medical officer of the Union. As to the clerk of the Lisburn Union, I answered a question on the 16th inst. put to me by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCartan), and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to my answer given then.

  LOUGH NEAGH DRAINAGE RATE.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount annually collected for maintenance rate in the Lough Neagh drainage district; what are the relative proportions of the sums paid for maintenance of officers' salaries, and travelling expenses of the members of the Drainage Board; and why a yearly statement of expenditure is not submitted to the cess-payers.
  *MR. JACKSON: The Lough Neagh district drainage rate is in no way under the control of the Government, and I have no official information on the matters referred to.

  THE CASE OF JAMES THOMPSON.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE(for Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN,): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an unfortunate Army pensioner named James Thompson, at present an inmate of the Kensington Workhouse, who received four severe wounds during the Indian Mutiny, which lamed him for life, and afterwards received other terrible injuries by reason of an accident at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook; and is he aware that Thompson was for twenty-four years denied the full pension to which a soldier wounded in action is entitled, and that he received no compensation for the injuries he sustained in the Royal Small Arms Factory; and, if so, whether, considering Thompson's advanced age and many injuries received in the public service, and considering that his present pension is appropriated to pay the cost of his support in the workhouse, some allowance will be made him in the shape of arrears of pension or compensation for accident which will save him from dying in a workhouse?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): James Thompson served eleven years in the Army. He received a wound in 1857, but was not invalided till 1864, when he received a pension of ninepence a day, the usual rate in such cases, when the recipient is able to supplement his pension by his earnings. In 1888 it was represented that this was no longer the Case, his disability having become worse, and his pension was increased to one shilling and twopence. He was, however, sufficently fit for employment as a labourer in the Royal Small Arms Factory at Birmingham, but before he had been there seven months
  36
  he sprained himself, and had unfortunately to be discharged, receiving £12 10s. injury pay and £31 16s. compensation in August last. I am afraid that nothing more can be done for him, but of course should he leave the workhouse his pension of one shilling and twopence would cease to be diverted by the Local Authorities.

  WESTPORT UNION ELECTION.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (for Mr. W. O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what authority have the Local Government Board intimated to the sitting Guardians for the Achill and Dooega Electoral Divisions of the Westport Union that their election as Guardians is invalid, on the plea that the landlord, Mrs. Pike, who never paid rates, whose name is not on the ratebook, and who had not taken out probate to her husband at the time of the election, did not record her votes; and if he will explain on what grounds the Local Government Board have disallowed five out of six votes claimed by the Franciscan community at Achill, whose votes have been recorded without objection for several years past, but have allowed the votes of the Trustees of the Achill Protestant Missions, who contribute nothing towards the rates, and who only hold a religious trust for a non-resident community?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the election referred to was set aside by the Local Government Board, who were advised that the Returning Officer had illegally disallowed the votes of Mrs. Pike. The rates were paid by Mrs. Pike's agent, and the receipts taken out in her name in respect of freehold property to which she succeeded on the death of her husband. It was not necessary to take out probate of her husband's will in order to qualify her to vote. With regard to the Franciscan community at Achill, the property in respect to which they are qualified to vote being rated at under £20 (£12 10s.), they are only entitled to one vote. The Trustees of the Achill Missions are rated as such, and entitled under the Act to vote.

  DISPUTES IN THE SUNDERLAND SHIPPING TRADE.
  MR. FENWICK; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Henderson, who was sentenced by the Magistrates of Sunderland on 19th May to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, and without the option of fine, for alleged intimidation of one of the officials of the Shipping Federation Company, Limited; whether he is aware that three of the Justices who tried the case were shareholders in vessels entered in the Shipping Federation; and whether he is aware that one of the Justices who tried this case was opposed by the defendant, and defeated at the last Municipal election for the Borough of Sunderland; and whether, in view of the fact that steps are being taken to have this case referred to the Court of Queen's Bench, he will undertake that Henderson shall be released from prison pending the decision of the Higher Court?
  MR. MILVAIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to answer that question, may I be permitted to ask him another which arises out of the question on the Paper, and of which I have given my right hon. Friend private notice? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that large numbers of Union men now assemble as pickets at the approaches to the shipping offices on the Tyne, the Wear, and the Tees, to forcibly prevent non-Union seamen signing articles of service on board British ships; whether he is aware that bands of such Union men assemble in the public ways, at the docks, on the quays, and even forcibly board some vessels and use violence for the purpose of intimidating non-Union sailors from exercising their right to ship at wages which they are ready and willing to accept; and if the facts are as stated, whether the right hon. Gentleman can take any steps to secure to those men immunity from such intimidation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): In answer to the hon. Member for the
  38
  Wansbeck Division I have to say John Henderson was sentenced on the 19th instant to fourteen days' imprisonment for following with more than two other persons in a disorderly manner through the streets one Laurence, with a view to compel him to abstain from doing acts which he had a right to do. The case was tried before four Magistrates, two of whom were medical men, one a retired draper, and the fourth a publisher. Three of these gentlemen own shares in shipping companies whose vessels are entered in the Federation, but neither of them take any part in the management of those vessels, or in the action of the Federation. I am informed by the Justices' clerk that neither he, nor, as he believes, the Justices, knew anything of the connection of these vessels with the Federation. I am informed that it is incorrect that either of these Magistrates was opposed or defeated by the defendant at the last municipal election for Sunderland. Henderson was never imprisoned. Notice of appeal to the Quarter Sessions was given and he was allowed to leave the Court at once and to complete his recognisances the next day. No steps have been taken to bring the matter before the Queen's Bench. I have received reports to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I have been in communication with the Local Authorities of Sunderland, Middlesbrough, and Northumberland. I have as yet received a reply only from Sunderland. I am informed that there have been only a few requests made to the Chief Constable there for police assistance, which have been at once complied with, and that he has ample force at his disposal to take all necessary action in the event of any large body of men being assembled for the purpose of intimidation, an event which has not yet occurred.
  MR. FENWICK: Is it not the fact, as stated in the evidence given at the trial, that Henderson was passing up on the opposite side of the street to that on which the person alleged to have been intimidated was passing down; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it was the mere fact that Henderson is a delegate of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union which led

  39
  to his being charged with having incited to intimidation, and that it was mere accident, as shown in the evidence, that he was in the street at the time when the intimidation was alleged to have taken place?
  MR. ROBERTSON: Am I right in inferring that the prosecution was not for intimidation, but under one of the clauses of the Conspiracy Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Under the fifth sub-section. I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member without notice.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: As I gather that in this case the members of one Union were engaged in trying the members of another Union, may I ask is there any way of preventing the recurrence of such a case in which Union men were tried by magistrates connected with the Federation, the two organisations being in conflict?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The mere fact of a magistrate owning a share in a Shipping Company whose vessels are entered in the Federation would not disqualify that magistrate from trying such a case. I should imagine that there are few magistrates in these ports who do not own one or more shares in Shipping Companies.

  MULLINGAR MAILS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is his intention to establish a mail car service between Mullingar and Multyfarnham, County Westmeath; and, if so, can he see his way to extend the service to Bunbrusna, a distance of two miles further on, in order that letters and parcels posted in Mullingar after nine p.m., also those arriving by the 3·15 a.m. mail train at Mullingar, may be delivered in regular course?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): It is not intended to establish a mail car service to and from Multyfarnham, which is very conveniently served under existing arrangements. A mail car would entail additional expenditure not covered by the revenue.

  COUNTY CLARE POLICE.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention
  40
  has been directed to the resolution unanimously passed by the magistrates and cesspayers who attended the Clare County at Large Sessions, pointing out that the state of the county having warranted the removal of the three military detachments in Clare, and as the present force of extra police forms a grievous burden on the cesspayers, they would respectfully request the Chief Secretary to invite the attention of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to the case of the county, with a view to having the strength of the free force augmented by the transfer of a large number of the extra police to it, as has been done in County Kerry; and what action the Irish Government intend taking on this representation?
  *MR. JACKSON: Within the past year the extra police force in the County Clare was reduced by forty-two men, and there has recently been a still further reduction of thirty-five men of the extra force and twelve men of the reserve carried out. There is no legal power to consider the question of increasing the free quota of the county until the next triennial re-distribution, when the cases of all counties will be considered, having regard to their claims in respect of population and area.

  POLICE BOOT CONTRACTS.
  MR. DALZIEL (, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the contract held by Messrs. Pocock Brothers, of Southwark Bridge Road, for the supply of boots for the use of the Metropolitan Police, there is any understanding that the wages paid in the carrying out of the contract shall be in accordance with the terms of the Resolution of the House; and is he aware that a portion of the work is done at the employees' own homes at wages which return them less than threepence per hour?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: The contract with Messrs. Pocock Brothers for the supply of boots for the use of the Metropolitan Police contains a clause which embodies the conditions of the Resolution passed by this House on 13th February, 1891. That portion of the work referred to in the second paragraph of the question known as "clos-

  41
  ing the uppers," is paid for at the rate of threepence halfpenny per pair of boots, and at this rate a good workman can earn from fifteen shillings to twenty shillings a week. This work, according to the custom of the trade, is always done at the homes of the workpeople, and for it there is no recognised rate of wages current in the trade. The work is generally done in country villages by boys, girls, and women.

  OFFICERS OF EXCISE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state if the barrier between first and second class officers of Excise is maintained in the interests of discipline and efficiency, why it is that all second class officers are kept for years behind the barrier at a stationary salary before their qualifications for promotion are inquired into; what is the difference in the nature of the duties of first and second class officers; whether a first class officer has disciplinary power over a second class officer; and whether it would be possible, to so increase the maximum of the second class and the minimum of the first class officer that, when an officer reaches the maximum, there would be a possibility of a vacancy arising in the class above to which he might be promoted if found deserving?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The rate of promotion from one class to another in the Excise depends upon the occurrence of vacancies in the higher class. It is the practice of the Inland Revenue to inquire into the qualifications for promotion of officers in the lower class whenever vacancies are likely to occur. Broadly, the difference between the duties of a first and second class officer is that the larger and more responsible? duties are entrusted to the former and the smaller and less important duties to the latter. My answer to the third and fourth paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  THE PERSIAN TOBACCO CONCESSION.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Mr. Talbot who received the concession
  42
  for a tobacco monopoly in Persia is the same person who has stood for some years, and still stands, on the official list as Supervisor of the Store Department of the Secretary of State for India in London; whether he was in possession of that appointment when he obtained the concession; whether he obtained the concession with the cognizance of the India Office; and, if so, under what rule of the Service; and whether any action has been taken in regard to his position at the India Office since the facts as to his obtaining the concession have been made known?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The answer to the hon. Member's question is "No."
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the name of the concessionaire of the Persian Tobacco Monopoly is G. H. Talbot, who is the brother of Major A. C. Talbot, the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, and whether he possesses military rank; and, if so, in what corps?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The Foreign Office has no special knowledge with regard to the military rank or the corps of the gentleman in question. Perhaps the hon. Member will find the information for which he seeks in the Army List, or he might obtain it from the War Office.
  MR. KEAY: What about the initials?
  MR. LOWTHER: I believe the initials of the gentleman referred to are G. F., not G. H. I thought it was a misprint.

  SALARIES OF CUSTOMS' OFFICERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a case which appeared in the Daily News of the 12th instant, where a Customs' officer was summoned to the Thames Police Court by a seaman for detaining twelve ounces of tobacco and a bottle of Florida water, and to

  43
  the comments of the magistrate on the proceedings of the Customs' authorities; whether, in the inquiry held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891, into the complaints of the officers of the Outdoor Department of the Customs, that while superior officers receiving large salaries were granted substantial benefits, the subordinates—namely, boatmen, receiving very low pay, where granted nothing, but sustained pecuniary loss by the abolition of classification, and that, in consequence, a great deal of discontent prevails amongst the officers of this class; and whether, in view of the temptation to improper exercise of their duties which is caused by the low scale of salaries, the Treasury would grant an improvement in the position of these officers?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The Board of Customs have had under consideration the circumstances referred to in paragraph No. 1 of the hon. Member's question, and have directed an inquiry to be made as to the proceedings of the officers in the case. I may mention that the officer in question was not a boatman, but a preventive officer. With regard to the remaining part of the question, it gives an entirely wrong impression of what was done in consequence of the inquiry held by myself in 1891. The change to which the hon. Member alludes, by which the distinction between the two classes of boatmen was abolished, was granted by me, not without some compunction, as a concession to the officers and on their request. I considered that there was force in the argument that there was scarcely sufficient space between the minimum salary of the lower class and the maximum of the higher class to warrant a division at that particular-point. This separation of the two classes having been abolished, the boatmen were to move up, by increments of £1 a year, from the bottom through the whole of what was formerly two classes, instead of being stopped half-way and having to wait for promotion before they could continue their annual increment. This was, generally, a boon to the class, or was intended to be so; but I understand that there have been individual cases where boatmen have been at the maximum of the second class and would on promotion
  44
  into the first class have received a £5 increment, and where, therefore, the change operates to the disadvantage of such individuals. In all re-organisations where boons have been conferred, I have found, to my regret, that individual grievances of a plausible character arose with which it was difficult to deal. Generally, the intention was to improve the boatmen's position, and to open up to them better chances of promotion than they enjoyed. In estimating the effect of the changes made upon the position of the boatmen generally, it is important to take into account the great improvement made in their prospects of promotion. This apparently has not been done by the hon. Member's informant. Some minor grievances—for instance, one connected with Sunday pay—are at present under my consideration.

  ARABI PASHA.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to a passage in the Overland Times of Ceylon, which states that—
  "Mr. T. J. Lipton left for China to-day in the P. and O. s.s. 'Thames,' and said good-bye to Arabi Pasha before he went on board, but later on Arabi went out to the 'Thames.' We believe this is the first time Arabi has been, afloat since he has been in the Island";
  whether this was the first time on which Arabi Pasha, during his imprisonment, has been allowed to leave-the Island; and whether, considering that he has shown no inclination to abuse any extra privileges accorded to-him, it would be possible to mitigate or to put an end to his imprisonment in Ceylon?
  MR. CONWAY: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. I beg to ask you whether my hon. Friend is justified in asking a question arising out of solicitude for an unfortunate exile, in allowing such question to be made the medium for a vulgar advertisement, Mr. Lipton being the well-known advertising tradesman?
  MR. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.
  MR. COX: May I ask is it not the fact that Arabi Pasha has only twice, during the time of his detention, been

  45
  out of Colombo because of his inadequate allowance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Questions on this subject should be addressed to the Foreign Office; the Colonial Office knows nothing about these matters.

  NATIVE INDIAN TROOPS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of His Highness the Nizam has offered to raise, equip, and maintain, at its own cost, a strong military force to aid in the defence of the Empire; and whether Her Majesty's Government has accepted this offer; and, if so, what effect has been given to the acceptance by the Government of India, and what recognition has been accorded of the spirit in which the offer was made?
  MR. CURZON: In 1887 the Nizam offered to contribute a large sum of money to the defence of the Empire, or, to use His Highness's own words, "in time of war, his sword." This loyal and generous offer was utilised in the organisation of the scheme of "Imperial Service Corps," under which the larger Native States maintain a portion of their troops on a footing to take the field in line with the British Army. In Hyderabad this scheme is still in course of evolution.

  THE WISHAW BUILDING SOCIETY.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Registrar of Friendly Societies demands that the "Wishaw Building and Investment Society" should change its name to the "Wishaw Investment and Building Society," and, seeing that this Building Society was established in 1858, and incorporated under the Building Societies Act of 1874, and that the said Society lately resolved to alter and amend its Rules, whether it is compulsory for the Society to alter its name although unwilling to do so; and whether Section 7 of the Treasury Regulations, as to the names of
  46
  Societies, applies only to Societies established at a date subsequent to that of the Act of 1874?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will answer this questson for my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland as Registrar of Building Societies in Scotland has "demanded that the Wishaw Building and Investment Society should change its name." It is not "compulsory for the Society to alter its name if it is unwilling to do so." As regards the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, Regulation 7 of the Secretary of State's Regulations—to which I presume he refers—as to the names of Societies, does not "apply only to Societies established at a date subsequent to that of the Act of 1874," but, so far as regards a change of name, applies to all incorporated Building Societies. The facts of the case to which the hon. Member alludes are that, under Regulation 5 of the Secretary of State's Regulations, the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland has refused to register a complete alteration of rules for the Wishaw Society until such complete alteration or new set of rules has been brought into conformity with the Building Societies Acts by the Society's adopting a name of which the last words shall be "Building Society"; but under Regulation 4 he has offered to register a partial alteration of Rules under the Society's present registered name.

  AFRICAN CHARTERED COMPANIES AND RESIDENT INSPECTORS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could see his way to appoint a Resident Inspector in each of the territories of the great Chartered Companies in Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The appointment of a Resident Inspector in each of the territories of the Chartered Companies would entail a heavy expenditure. A residence, staff, and independent means of locomotion would have to be pro-

  47
  vided for. These requirements in uncivilised countries would represent large sums of money, out of proportion to the advantages likely to be derived from their, presence. There are at present Government officials stationed in the neighbourhood of all the territories referred to, through whom local investigations could be conducted if required, and to whom complaints could be made if desired.

  ALLEGED INSOLVENCY OF AN IRISH MAGISTRATE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Chancellor that Mr. Thomas Ferguson, J.P., of Banbridge, County Down, recently made a composition with his creditors; and whether, in consequence, it is proposed to remove him from the Commission of the Peace and ex-officio Guardianship of the Poor?
  MR. JACKSON: No information to the effect alluded to in the question has come to the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and his Lordship's Secretary is informed by the proper officials that no proceedings of any kind have been taken either by or against the gentleman referred to in this question.

  THE CASE OF GERALDO DE LIMA.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen a letter from Geraldo de Lima in the African Times, of 1st February, in which he says—
  "In good faith I have recommended the English people to the Awoonahs, and to the King also, and have always advised them to be loyal to the British Government and laws, notwithstanding the treatment I received years ago. … I was never a slave dealer in the sense my late master Cæsar de Lima was, and since his death my trade has always been free trade. And, because my name is de Lima, I have to suffer. … I do not know on what charge I was deported to Accra. I was never tried at all";
  and in view of the facts that Geraldo de Lima has claims against the British Government for £5,000, the justice of which have been urged by men of in-
  48
  fluence and integrity at the Gold Coast, that his house and property and business have gone to ruin during his imprisonment, and that he has not been allowed to see his family once since his deportation to Accra, will he be charged with a definite offence and tried, or else liberated and sent home?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers, but I need scarcely point out that the statements it contains are of an entirely ex parte character. There is no information in the Colonial Office as to his alleged claims against the British Government, or that their justice has been "urged by men of influence and integrity at the Gold Coast." The Governor will, however, be asked for a Report on the subject, and also to state whether he can now recommend de Lima's release,

  THE NEW FOREST RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Mr. Pelham has sent in his Report on the proposed scheme for establishing a rifle range in the New Forest; and whether the Report will be laid before the Committee on the Military Lands Bill before they take evidence on the subject of the New Forest?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Report has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, who is on the continent, and it will be presented to the House as soon as possible. I cannot promise that it will be in the hands of Members on Monday.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will it be placed in the hands of Members as soon as possible—before the conclusion of the Committee?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say how long the Committee will last.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Convention has been signed by the Governments of Spain and France, under which France is to receive the "most favoured nation" treatment until 1st July, and afterwards to be charged the lowest duties of the Spanish tariff; and whether any efforts are being made to

  49
  obtain a similar Convention between the Governments of Spain and of the United Kingdom?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Foreign Office has been informed that a provisional agreement has been concluded between the Governments of Trance and of Spain. France will give her minimum tariff to Spain in exchange for the Spanish conventional tariff which is in force for Treaty Powers until 1st July. This agreement it is undertood will only last until 1st July. As Her Majesty's Government enjoy the present Spanish conventional tariff until 1st July, French trade will not be placed in a more favourable position than British by this arrangement.
  MR. LENG: The hon. Gentleman has not adverted to the second paragraph of the question.
  MR. LOWTHER: I have informed the hon. Gentleman before that negotiations are going on with the Spanish Government with a view to the extension of the Commercial Treaty, but at present I am not able to give the hon. Member any further information.

  THE MALTESE MARRIAGE LAW.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the engagements or undertakings given to the Holy See as to the Maltese Marriage Law and the other matters broached by Sir Lintorn Simmons at the Vatican have been fulfilled, or has any remonstrance been received by Her Majesty's Government as to their non-fulfilment?
  MR. WOODALL: Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether anything has been done to enable British subjects in Malta to contract marriages under the Act of last Session?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will postpone his question till Monday. I have not yet been able to obtain the necessary information, but I will undertake to give him an answer on Monday.
  MR. HEALY: I suppose there will be no objection to postpone the Vote on Account till Monday also?
  MR. LOWTHER: I will endeavour to get the answer down from the office as soon as I can, and if the hon. Member wishes to have this information before the Vote on Account I will communicate it privately before the Vote comes on.
  MR. HEALY: I am satisfied.

  THE COST OF EXCISE COLLECTION.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what the cost of collecting the Excise for the financial year 1884 was, and what that for 1891 was; and what the amounts of Excise Revenue brought in charge in those two years respectively were; and whether, in the year 1884, the officers of Excise received £11,000 for collecting the Agricultural Statistics, and if that amount is still paid to them? I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being in my place when the question was first called, but I was detained upstairs with Committee work.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I was about to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being absent myself. I am unable to separate the cost of collecting the Excise from that of the collection of Inland Revenue generally. The Excise Revenue was £27,306,000 in 1884–5, and, including that paid to the Local Taxation Account, £30,884,000 in 1891–2. The second question has been answered more than once recently, the last answer having been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 17th inst.
  MR. KELLY: My object in putting down the question is to ascertain this. In 1884 the amount was3·9, and a sum was charged for agricultural statistics, whereas in 1891 when the amount was 3·26 that sum was not so charged.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Gentleman must give me notice of that question.

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the "Provisional Regulations" of the Suez Canal Company in regard to bulk transit in the Suez Canal, under which new systems of anchorage and compulsory convoyage are required, constitute

  51
  an infringement or modification of the pledge which was given by the Delegate of Turkey at the International Tonnage Convention held at Constantinople, in which it is stated that—
  "No modification for the future of the conditions for the passage through the Canal shall be permitted, whether in regard to the navigation toll or the dues for towage, anchorage, pilotage, &c, except with the consent of the Sublime Porte, which will not take any decision on this subject without previously coming to an understanding with the principal Powers interested therein"?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Provisional Regulations do not constitute any infringement of the Declarations of the International Tonnage Convention, as the navigation tolls, towage, anchorage, and pilotage dues are not raised or altered. The question of the legality of the Provisional Regulations is one rather for the consideration of the Suez Canal Company than for Her Majesty's Government.

  "AVERAGE ATTENDANCE" UNDER THE EDUCATION CODE.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the definition of "average attendance" in the Code of last year, upon which the amount of the fee grant depends under the new Education Act; and whether, in their opinion, that definition is in certain cases inconsistent with the general intention of the Act, that no existing school should be compelled to receive a less fee income than they did before its passing?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): In compliance with the undertaking which I have entered into, instructions have been given for the preparation of a case to be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown.

  QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE.
  MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: Should I be in Order in putting a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs without notice?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No, not without notice. The hon. Member may put a question on the Paper for Monday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I see the Vote on Account is the second Order on the Paper. I have no reason to suppose that it will not be carried at the Morning Sitting, but in the event of its not being carried, does the First Lord of the Treasury intend putting it down for the Evening Sitting?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am very unwilling to contemplate the contingency to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I thought I had reason to hope that the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill would take but a short time, and that we might finish the Vote on Account by ten minutes to seven o'clock. If, however, it is not carried, it will certainly be put down for this evening, because it is necessary for the purposes of the Treasury that the money should be voted.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I do not think the discussion will take long, but it would be unfair to closure the Debate at the Morning Sitting.
  MR. BALFOUR: I am very anxious that hon. Gentlemen should have an opportunity of raising any question they like, but I hope the House will cut down anything in the nature of unnecessary discussion.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I should like to ask with respect to the fourth Order on the Paper, the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, whether arrangements will be made to take that Bill to-day, or at a Saturday Sitting, or at some other early period?
  MR. BALFOUR: I hope we shall be able to deal with this Bill, which we are exceedingly anxious to pass. Perhaps if we get through the Vote on Account at the Morning Sitting, we may do something with this Bill this evening.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Notice relating to the Orders at the Evening Sitting are in the names of his own

  53
  supporters, he cannot arrange to take Supply immediately after 9 o'clock if the Vote on Account is not finished at 7? Will he also tell us what business he intends to take on Monday?
  MR. BALFOUR: I have already answered the first question, and if the hon. Gentleman had been in his place he would have heard that if the Vote on Account is not finished before 7 o'clock, we shall take it at the Evening Sitting. With respect to the second question, it is probable that we shall take the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill on Monday.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say definitely, because if that Bill is taken the Irish Members will want to be here. If the Bill is not taken on Monday, they can be better engaged elsewhere.
  MR. BALFOUR: It will certainly be taken on Monday or Tuesday; probably on Monday.

  ALLEGED INTIMIDATION BY THE FARMERS' ALLIANCE.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I beg to address to the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. A rather serious statement is made in this morning's papers by the Rev. Dr. Jessop, a well-known writer on agricultural matters, and rector of the parish of Seaming. Three of his parishioners being dissatisfied with the wages paid as agricultural labourers—namely, 12s. a week—obtained employment with the Great Eastern Railway Company. Shortly afterwards they were dismissed, as he asserts, at the instance and under the pressure of the Farmers' Alliance. If the facts are as stated here, that discloses a case of conspiracy similar to that which was taken up by the Public Prosecutor in Scotland, when two working men were last year prosecuted and punished. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can promise, on behalf of the Government, that an immediate inquiry shall be made into the facts in order to ascertain whether they are as stated by the reverend gentleman, and whether they would come under the Law of Conspiracy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I received notice of the question a few minutes ago, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should put a question to the Attorney General on the subject, as this is a legal question that I am not competent to deal with. I do not know that any machinery exists by which an inquiry could be made; but the Attorney General or the Public Prosecutor will probably do anything that they may think necessary. The hon. Member should put his question to the Attorney General.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL (No. 183.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  New Clause—
  (Small Holdings to be personal property.)
  "Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property, and shall be dealt with in like manner and be subject to like rules of law as leasehold land.
  Provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to probate duty or legacy duty, or exempt it from succession duty,"—(Mr. Chaplin,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): As the House knows, I move this clause in fulfilment of a pledge I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. I then undertook to look carefully into the matter, although I saw considerable objection to the proposal embodied in the clause. This clause is the result of subsequent consideration, but I am bound to say, at the same time, that the objections which I took to the clause at that time are still undiminished, as I think it eminently undesirable to deal with such a large matter in a Small Holdings Bill. Still, I felt that I should be departing from a pledge if I had not brought in the clause. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will return to the better opinion he held a week or two ago in this matter, and withdraw the clause altogether. The proposal is to impose an exceptional treatment of these small holdings, as distinguished from other land, and I think that is unnecessary and objectionable. I understand the right hon. Gentleman only moves the first of the two clauses now, the one dealing with Succession Duty.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, the Succession Duty Clause.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not quite Understand what is meant by the concluding part of the paragraph "rules of law as leasehold land." What are the rules as to leasehold land distinguishing it from other personal property? I am not aware of any special rules of law dealing with leasehold land, and I cannot understand what the words refer to. The clause would be quite clear if the words after "personal property" were left out. The subsequent words only suggest and introduce difficulties in dealing with it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will undertake to have the wording altered if that will satisfy the hon. Member.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will preserve the clause—not necessarily in its integrity as to the wording; but the substance of the clause is only introduced to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman as announced to the Committee. I have always thought that the easiest way to deal with real property subject to Succession Duty was to treat it as leasehold property. The clause is a reasonable and proper one for carrying out the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to the Committee.
  MR. DARLING: I rather hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). Apparently, the intention of the clause is that the holding shall be treated as real property in all respects except one; and that is, that it shall be divisible among the survivors of the owner as personal property; but before the clause is withdrawn or modified, I should like to know what was aimed
  56
  at by the draftsman who put in those words? With regard to the rules of law as to leasehold land, the first is that at the end of the lease the land goes back to the person who granted the lease. That is the only distinct law to which leasehold land is subject. How long is this lease for? As long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office or for a shorter term? How long are the holdings to be subject to these rules? This tinkering with the law relating to land will lead to great evil considering what this Bill is to do. We are about to fix on the soil a most deserving class, something like the old yeoman farmer, in whose case the land passed from father to son for generations. Suddenly the right hon. Gentleman says every time a tenant dies there is to be a division among his family, or, if the holding is too small, it is to be sold and the proceeds divided. This is a question of principle and not of form, and before we pass the clause I should like to know exactly what is meant by saying that the holdings are to be dealt with like leasehold land?
  *SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I think anyone will agree that the alteration of this clause is a step in a direction which ought to be very carefully considered before it is adopted. We are taking a step which may extend to all real property in the country. I say that we ought not by a side issue in the middle of a Bill propound a proposal of such magnitude and importance as that in this clause. My right hon. Friend may not have altered his view on the matter; but had I been in his place in the Committee, I would have gone to a Division and been defeated, if it was to be so, on so grave a point rather than have given way. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that leasehold property reverts to the owner at the expiration of the lease; but is there not something more in the wording of the clause?—
  "Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property."
  That may be taken to mean that when it has reverted to the original owner it shall still remain personal property, and that is a point which deserves most serious consideration.
  MR. PICTON: I should like a little more explanation of the last two lines of the clause. Apparently in some cases the holding will be sold and the money divided; and I fear in that case the successors would have to pay both Probate and Legacy Duty, and not merely Succession Duty, which would be very unfair on these poor people on whom we desire to confer the benefit of paying only one duty. If the explanation of that part of the clause is not satisfactory, I shall move an Amendment unless I should be in order in moving it now.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must move his Amendment after the clause has been read a second time.
  MR. HERBERT T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to say a few words in support of the protest my hon. and gallant Friend has made against the adoption of this clause. It seems to be objectionable on two grounds: It deals with an important question by a side wind, and practically abolishes the law of primogeniture in a Bill dealing with small holdings; and I do not think this is the proper time to discuss such a matter. If the clause is adopted, it will defeat the object of the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his former view and withdraw the clause
  MR. COURTNEY: No one who has followed the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will protest against the introduction of this clause. The principle was assented to after a good deal of discussion, and it cannot, therefore, be now withdrawn. My own opinion is entirely in favour of the adoption of the clause. As to the wording of the clause, that is a matter which can be considered after it has been read a second time. I may point out that the rule of descent is one of the rules of law as to leasehold land.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I stated at the commencement of my observations that this clause was introduced by me on this occasion in virtue of what I considered, after carefully re-examining the question, to be a pledge binding on me, and from which I could not depart. I stated, also, that my own objection to the clause was undiminished; but
  58
  that in virtue of the pledge I took the only course open to me. I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Sir Walter Barttelot) that upon the question of principle the-Government were pledged already, as the principle of this clause is embodied in a Bill they have already introduced themselves; and the only ground, therefore, which I had to consider was the ground of expediency. I repeat that, personally, on the ground of expediency, I do think it unreasonable that this question should be dealt with in a fragmentary way; but it is beyond the scope of this Bill to deal with it as a whole, and I felt myself bound to carry out the pledge to introduce this clause. I will take care that words shall be inserted in another place, if necessary, to make the meaning perfectly clear. But I believe myself the clause will be sufficient in itself. Under these circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree not to discuss the question further, but come to a decision without delay.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think hon. Members opposite very much magnify this matter. As I understand it, this was simply intended to prevent the misfortune which these small holders are liable to fall into—that is the misfortune arising from these small holders dying without making a will. It is well-known that these small men will not make a will; and there have been a good many instances, in the absence of a clause like this, where a man has died without making a will, and his-wife and children have lost all their little property, which has gone to a stranger, or to some cousin, or other person as the next heir.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to move the omission of the last two lines of the clause. I do not think it fair or right that this provision should be put in at all. When we are introducing a new class of landowners in this way, I think we should be taking a very false step to adopt such a provision as this. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the omission of these two lines—four and five of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from the word "land" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I now have to move another clause, which is again in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave when this Bill was going through Committee. The point was raised in debate on one occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that at the close of the ten years during which the new owner would be subject to certain conditions, and after the period when he had paid off the whole of the purchase-money, it might happen that land which had been taken from and sold by an adjoining landlord might be used for purposes which might be a nuisance and a great injury to the community; and that, therefore, the owners of property, with that fear and apprehension in their minds, would be slow to sell, and thus prevent the bringing of the provisions of this Bill into operation. The right hon. Gentleman stated as a compromise between his view and my own that I might introduce a clause providing for the pre-emption of the land by either the adjoining owners, or the original owner, or the County Council, in the event of the new owner of the holding desiring to part with it for purposes other than agriculture. I have considered the question, and I have submitted the clause in its present form for the consideration of the House. I think it will meet the main object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view; that is to say, to remove the fear of injury or the unwillingness to sell the land on the part of the existing landowners. I hope the House will agree to accept this clause.
  New Clause—
  (Right of pre-emption.)
  "If at any time after the restrictive conditions imposed by this Act have ceased to attach to a small holding, the owner of the holding desires to use or sell the holding for purposes other than agriculture, he shall before so doing offer the holding for sale to the person or persons whose lands immediately
  60
  adjoin the holding, and sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty of 'The Lands Clauses Act, 1845,' shall apply as if the owner of the small holding were the promoter of the undertaking, and the holding were superfluous lands within the meaning of those sections,"—(Mr. Chaplin,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I can only repeat the protest which I made against putting this embarrassing infliction upon the people, who, you propose, should become landowners under this Bill. I believe the object of the clause is to have some provision or condition hanging over the property to prevent it being speculated in by persons who want to build on it or to make profit out of it rather than to cultivate it themselves; but I do not think this clause will effectually carry out that object. I think the practical effect of this clause will be to make this property almost unmarketable. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act are inapplicable to these small holdings; and if this clause be adopted it will necessitate long and expensive inquiries, which may entail heavy costs upon small holders. These people having paid their money and bought their little property ought to be as free to deal with it as any other owners who have purchased property. Why you should inflict possible loss and practical restriction upon the land is beyond my comprehension. Your object is to encourage these men to invest their little money in the purchase of these properties; and while you have that good object in view, you propose to hang over these people the right of compulsory purchase by an adjoining owner. Why adjoining owner? Why should it not be the original owner? And if adjoining owners, which of the adjoining owners? After cutting up land into sections for these small holdings adjoining owners would probably be two or three of these small holders, whose land may bound this land which you propose to sell. Which of these small holders is to have the right of purchase? You are hanging over these small properties a condition which will be absolutely destructive to them in the market. Who would buy

  61
  with the liability of being compelled, in certain events quite likely to happen, at any time to sell by arbitration, with the liability to pay the costs of the arbitration? It is altogether a most damaging and injurious provision. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, in view of the difficulties it would cause, to withdraw the clause altogether; but in its present form it is quite clear that it ought to be amended.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman seriously proposes this clause, and the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to me to apply quite as much to the original owner as to the adjoining owners. Neither of these classes of persons have the slightest or the remotest shade of a claim upon this land, or to a claim to exercise the right of pre-emption. The adjoining owner has done nothing to entitle him to claim to exercise this right over this land to which Parliament thought fit to attach a certain reversion, and with respect to which Parliament gave facilities for creating small holdings. The original owner has no claim whatever upon the land, because he has been paid the full price for it in the open market by a public authority. If the land is to revert at all it should revert to the County Council, the only body that has any claim or any right of preemption over this land, and which represents all the ratepayers within the county. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not ask us to spend any more of the time of the House in trying to force on us a clause which is thoroughly inexcusable, and which, if passed, there is no doubt whatever will cause all manner of heart-burning and endless litigation, and do no good whatever to the community. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in bringing the forces of the Government to bear in order to carry this clause and succeeds, we shall move a number of Amendments upon the clause, the chief one of which will be that the right of preemption shall be given to the County Council of the county in which the holding is situated. I trust the right
  62
  hon. Gentleman will save the time of the House by giving an intimation that this Amendment will be accepted.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Certainly I think the clause, as it is framed, is open to very serious objection. I understood in the course of the discussion which took place on this subject in Committee that the general view was that if any owner of one of these small holdings desired to sell it for other purposes, the right of pre-emption should be given to the County Council, and not to the former owner or to the adjoining owner. But under the clause the County Council will have no right of pre-emption whatever. The right of pre-emption is given not to the former owner of the property, who sold and severed it from his estate, but to all or any of the adjoining owners of the land immediately adjoining the small holding. Let me illustrate it by a case: Suppose that a small holding becomes valuable for building purposes quite unexpectedly in consequence of a railway coming into the neighbourhood, or for any other reason; under this clause this unearned increment will go not to the owner of the small holding, not to the County Council by whose money the small holder was enabled to become the owner of his holding, not even to the original owner of the property, but to the adjoining owner. ("No, no!") That, I understand, is the meaning of the clause.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The small holder.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Not necessarily. It may be some great adjoining landowner, who would never sell his property. I do not think that can be the intention of the Government. It seems to me that, on the whole, the wise course to adopt would be, if the principle of reversion be introduced at all, if the right of pre-emption be given to anybody, it should be given to the County Council by whom the land was originally purchased from the original owner and sold again for the purpose of small holdings. But I do not think it would be desirable, if the County Council were unwilling to take it, that the former owner should have it. The increment of value arising from this property should go to the owner of the small holding, or else to

  63
  the County Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this clause in its present shape.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Some clause of this kind is absolutely necessary, not in the interest of the landowner, but to protect the small holder from the land speculator. There are two great reasons why a clause of this kind was asked for. First of all it was held that landlords could not be found to sell under these conditions, when, at the end of ten years, the land might get into the hands of some speculative builder who might erect factories or jerry buildings or anything which might become a nuisance. The other reason was to protect the small holding from getting into the hands of the land speculator, who thought he could do better with it than let it remain a small holding. My right hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing the unearned increment will go to the landlord; it will go to the small holder, because the landlord will have to pay the actual worth of the land at the present time. But my purpose, and the purpose of the Government, is to retain these small holdings as small holdings, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause should read in this way: We should give the right of pre-emption to the County Council for the purpose of the small holding, and then if the County Council does not want to buy—and for my part I do not care who gets it if it is left a small holding—we should give the right to the original landowner or his successors in title, or to the neighbouring landowner. We are now dealing with the one blot in what is a very good Bill. Under a subsequent clause the small holdings are only to remain intact for ten years. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the County Council the right of pre-emption, and failing them the original landowner or his successors in title or the neighbouring landowner, then I think he will secure, as far as can be secured at present, that these small holdings shall remain as small holdings, and will protect the small holder from his great enemy—the man who wants to take advantage of some needy time in order to buy the small holding from him. If, in addition to that, the right hon.
  64
  Gentleman will, in a subsequent Amendment, extend the ten years I think we shall make this into a good Bill. The effect of the clause so amended will be to keep the small holding as a cultivated small holding for the utmost possible time.
  MR. ALFRED GATHORNE-HARDY: I think it is quite easy to discuss this, clause without heat, though there seems to be something in the very words, "unearned increment," which is calculated to raise heat. The question of unearned increment going to the landlord does not arise in any shape or form in this clause. There-must be some means of the small holder-dealing with the property, provided that for some reason or another it is undesirable to carry it on as a small holding. This clause gives, in these circumstances, the right of pre-emption-to the landowner of the adjoining holding. I think it really ought to be to the original seller. "Whatever may be the-price, either by agreement or by arbitration, the unearned increment will go to the small proprietor who-originally had it. I think some right of pre-emption should rest with the person originally selling, for these-reasons—that we desire that this Act should work freely; we desire to give the landowners an inducement to sell to those who are willing to carry out the objects of this Act. Well, I think they will be much less ready to sell if, at the time that their property has ceased to be used for the purposes of the Act, it might go into the hands of-the County Council, or of anybody else who might happen to buy it without their having any voice in the matter; and for that reason, seeing it is no—question of the landlord making a profit,, and seeing it will facilitate the working of the Act, I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to the clause as it stands, subject to this, that he might substitute "original owner" for "adjoining owners."
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I am glad to be in absolute accordance with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) on this question. I think it was distinctly understood that a clause would be introduced by

  65
  the Government to the effect that, if we are going to advance public money in this way, we would not be checkmated by the land-grabber or the speculative builder, and that these places should not be perverted from being small holdings. Then when it came to the means which we should adopt, I think there was a general concurrence of opinion, first of all, that the County Council, being the popular authority, should have the first right of pre-emption merely in order that they should continue these small holdings as small holdings; and failing the power of the County Council to continue them as small holdings, there is only one person who ought to have the right of pre-emption, and that is the landlord who sold the land in the first instance. I never heard anything more absurd or ridiculous than this question of adjoining landlord. You might have one landlord on the north, another on the south, another on the east, and another on the west. Are they going to toss up who shall have the power proposed to be given? The only person who has any right, when it ceases to be a small holding, is the landlord who has been willing and ready to put his land, without any compulsory powers, into the hands of the County Council for the purpose of these small holdings; and he has a right to be protected from having a lot of buildings put on his property which might very likely be a great nuisance. I cannot imagine why, after that particular Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley which carried out exactly what the House intended, and what I believe we all understood, this Amendment should ever have been put on the Paper. It is past altering and past amending, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to save the time of the House, and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley, and settle the question.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (, &c.): I do not think this clause answers its ostensible object. That I understand is to facilitate the sale of land for the purpose of small holdings, and of offering some inducement to the owner and some prospect that when the small holding ceases to be used for that purpose, there
  66
  will be the power of re-entry. That will not be the result as the clause stands—the original owner must be the adjoining owner. Suppose, for instance, that the County Council makes a purchase. They would not purchase five acres here and five acres there. They would probably make a purchase of a whole farm of, say, a hundred or two hundred acres, and parcel that out into twenty or thirty small holdings. The result would be that a small holding might be a portion in the middle of thirty or forty others parcelled out of the farm. Under these circumstances, then, the person who would be entitled, under this proposed clause, to purchase the superfluous land would not be the original owner, but some adjoining small owner, or perhaps a dozen small holders, whose lands will be contiguous to the one not used. This seems to be based upon some idea that we are following the clause of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but there are some important distinctions between that Act and this provision. The most practical distinction is this: that in the case of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act the powers are generally used for the purpose of buying or selling land, to make a railway, and in a case of that character it is very proper you should give the original owner the right to purchase superfluous lands. But there is nothing of the same kind in this case as in the case of making a railway. You buy a whole farm, and parcel it into small holdings. There you have not got a strip of land passing through the estate for a commercial purpose, such as a railway. It is simply the distribution of one whole farm into so many small farms, and the provision in this case is utterly inadequate. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, who alone, it seems to me, have a reasonable right to have such a power.
  MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: If I vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman it will be in the hope that he will afterwards accept the proposal to place the

  67
  County Council first in this right of pre-emption. Throughout the Debate on this Bill hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their desire to protect the small holdings from that land speculator, but I am afraid this would rather play into the hands of the land speculator. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley spoke of the County Council having the right of pre-emption, with the sole purpose of that right being exercised in order to keep the land for the purpose of small holdings; but it seems to me that if the circumstances such as were contemplated by the right hon. Member for Bradford did arise, it would be in the power of the County Council to keep the land strictly to the purpose of small holdings. The purchase money might be so great as to prevent the transaction being an economical one. Therefore, in giving the right of preemption to a County Council I would suggest that they should be allowed to exercise the right primarily for the purpose of small holdings, but subject to the consent of the Local Government Board for any other public purpose. It is quite conceivable that these small holdings, at the time this clause comes into operation, may be in the centre of a great town, and be then unsuitable as such; but the land would be eminently suitable for some public purposes, such as a park, and I would give the County Council the right to retain it for such purposes, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board. Although I shall vote for the Second Reading of this clause, as it includes the principle of the right of pre-emption, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afterwards consent to give that right primarily to the County Council.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Many criticisms have been made on this clause, and questions have been asked as to the adjoining owner who is named in the clause. One gentleman went so far as to say that he never in his life read so absurd a clause. As a matter of fact the clause is well known, it having been taken from the precedent of the sale of superfluous lands purchased by railways; and that hon. Member will find that I have practically adopted the language and meaning of certain sections of the Lands
  68
  Clauses Act. I recognise that the clause does not meet with general approval as it is, and I am quite willing to try to amend it. I think the best way would be to amend the clause so as to include all the interests, involved, and for that purpose I shall accept the suggestion that the right of pre-emption should be offered in the first instance to the County Council from whom the land was purchased; in the second instance to the original owner or his successor in title; and in the third instance to the adjoining owners, and the mode in which the priority of the adjoining owners is to be settled is prescribed in the latter part of the clause as it now stands. If the House accepts my proposal, and will read the clause a second time, I shall move Amendments to carry it out.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The House will, I am sure, recognise the very conciliatory spirit shown by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, and I imagine that, so far as the question of the persons to whom the right of pre-emption is to be given is concerned, the concession which he has just made will be perfectly satisfactory to the House. But there is one point to which he did not allude—I do not know whether he has considered it—in regard to which I think this clause is somewhat defective. We had two objects in dealing with this matter. The first was that land devoted to the purchase of small holdings under this Act should remain employed for that purpose as long as possible. There may be circumstances which may make it impossible to continue the small holdings; but so long as possible the House desires the land to remain as small holdings. The second object we had in view was to prevent a landlord from being discouraged from selling land for the purpose of small holdings by the fear that, after the land had been acquired for that purpose, the small owner might change his mind and enter into building speculation, and thus, without the consent of the original landowner, make a different use of the land and reduce the value of the surrounding property. Under the clause as it stands at present the owner of the small holding,

  69
  if entitled to the increased value of the land, will be tempted to make a large profit by selling it for building purposes. Land which a small holder may have bought for £100 near a large town may in a few years become worth £1,000 Here, then, is the temptation to the owner of the small holding to give up its cultivation in order to sell it for building purposes, which is an evil we wish to avoid. The only fair proposition, in my opinion, would be to say that should the small holder no longer wish to keep the land he shall be only able to sell it at its agricultural value. That would take from him the temptation of giving it up for building purposes. Now, that is a most important point; and as the clause of my right hon. Friend does not deal with it, I hope that some provision will be introduced for that purpose.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I take an entirely different view to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is a great venture to go in for land at all, and I consider that if a man puts his money into a small holding and takes the risk he ought to reap the advantage if the land increases in value.
  MR. DUGDALE: I am afraid there would be some difficulty in arranging matters with adjoining owners. Suppose there is a small holding bounded on all sides by the property of adjoining owners, how far is the Hinterland to extend? I think it is desirable that we should know that.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I now move to insert, in line 4, after the word "sale"—
  "First to the County Council from whom the holding was purchased, next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed and then."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I hope the Committee will not assent to this proposition. It seems to me that when once the County Council refuses to take the land for its own purposes, the small holder himself should have the next claim to it.
  An hon. MEMBER: No.
  MR. ELLIS: Most certainly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with giving the right of pre-emption to the County Council only. Having bought the land the County Council should have power to use it for such purposes as they may think will best serve the interests of the locality.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If the Committee will allow these words to be inserted, we could go on to the next sentence of the clause as to the adjoining owners, and it would not be necessary to deal with the question in three gradations.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I would not object to strike out the words referring to the adjoining owners.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I would suggest that the words "and then" should be left out.
  MR. COURTNEY: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, but he also uses these words—
  "Next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed."
  Now, it is possible that the property may be broken up into two or three parts, and that there may be several owners. It will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to consider that before going further.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word "purchased" to the end of the proposed Amendment. — (Mr. Channing.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. HALDANE: Shall I now be in order in moving that the words "and then" be omitted?
  MR. SPEAKER: No.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept only the last clause of the Amendment which stands in my name, as the first part is now practically embodied in the Bill. My Amendment is to add to the New Clause the following:—

  71
  "The price of such re-purchase shall be the value of the land as agricultural land, together with fair compensation for all improvements made for the small holder or his predecessors."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am sorry to say I cannot accept this Amendment. The Committee will recollect that throughout the whole discussion on this Bill I have always claimed for new holders that they should ultimately have the right to acquire the freehold of the property. I could not, at this stage of the Bill, go back from the view which I have pressed upon the House throughout with regard to that point. I can quite understand the arguments that may be used against my view of the case; but I have carefully considered the subject, and I feel that there could be no greater deterrent to the new holders whom we desire to see created from embarking on the purchase of these holdings than the knowledge of the fact that if the holdings should increase in value, and they desire to part with them, they would receive a price which might be much less than the market value—a price which would, in fact, be only the agricultural value.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, added.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I beg to move, in page 10, after Clause 21, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Modification as to succession to small holdings in Scotland.)
  "In lieu of section of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect in Scotland:—Land comprised in a small holding shall, for the purposes of succession, be deemed to be moveable property, provided that the titles to such land, and any securities affecting the same, shall be continued to be made up and recorded according to the present law and practice, except in so far as varied by the provisions of this Act. Provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to inventory or probate duty or exempt it from succession duty."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)
  MR. CUST: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch law is different from the English law with reference to the protection of rights in such holdings?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: This is entirely a consequential clause. There will be no difficulty in Scotland on the point raised by the hon. Member.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  On Motion of Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out from "the County Council," to "County Council," in line 35, inclusive, and insert similar words after line 2, page 3.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Before the hon. Gentleman moves his next Amendment, I would ask to be allowed to propose that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne). It is as follows:—Clause 4, page 2, line 40, leave out from "Provided," to "remove," in line 41, and insert "and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I will now move the following Amendment which stands in my name:—
  Clause 4, page 3, after line 2, insert "The County Council shall have power to sell, or, in the case of small holdings which may be let, to let, one or more small holdings to a number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided such system be approved by the County Council."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I do not understand the meaning of the words of the hon. Member's Amendment. I do not know what he means by "persons working on a co-operative system." The words have no legal meaning. It is one of those Amendments put across the floor of the House and accepted, and which later cost a great deal of time and much expense. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will so alter his Amendment that it may have

  73
  a reasonable chance of being understood. I can only understand the words to mean a Joint Stock Company. In my experience most Co-operative Societies are Joint Stock Companies. I do not know whether the hon. Member deems it likely that a Joint Stock Company will take a small holding.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. COBB: The Amendment standing in my name merely proposes to carry into effect a promise the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 19, leave out sub-section (3), and insert the following sub-section:—(3.) "If any councillor representing or alderman residing in any part of a county in which it is alleged that there is a demand for small holdings is not a member of the committee, he shall be added to the committee for the consideration of the alleged demand."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. When we were in Committee on this Bill I had an Amendment of similar purport, and my object in repeating it is to afford the right hon. Gentleman another opportunity of considering what proportion of the purchase-money shall be advanced. As the Bill at present stands, only eighty per cent. can be advanced to the purchaser by the County Council. My proposal means that, if the County Council thought fit, it should be permitted to advance ninety per cent. I venture to urge this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I have before pointed out, we have agreed to advance the Irish tenant the whole amount of the purchase-money. I confess I cannot see why England, Scotland, and Wales should not be treated on equal terms.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, leave out "one fifth," and insert "ten per cent."—(Mr. Morton.)
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member is out of Order. It deals with a subject which cannot be submitted while I am in the Chair.
  Clause 8.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I beg to move the Amendment in my name—
  Page 4, at end, add "and an entry in the register shall be admissible as evidence of the title of the person to whom the entry relates."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I have an Amendment to move to this clause. When we were in Committee I proposed to leave out the word "ten." The right hon. Gentleman did not commit himself to any promise, but he said that he was open to consider whether or not he could lengthen the term to which the restrictive clause should apply. I ask him now to make the period thirty years instead of ten. Although I can see objections to making the clause permanent, yet I consider ten years altogether too brief a period. After the land is bought, the small holder will enter on his work, and in a few years will be subjected to the tactics of some land speculator who has an eye on the small holding. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to extend the term to thirty years, he would do much, I consider, to secure the good working of his Bill. Under Clause 9, Sub-section 6, the County Councils are allowed to sell these small holdings without any conditions whatever, and that seems to me fully to meet any special occasions that may arise.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHAPLIN: As the hon. Member says, it is quite true that I made no pledge on this subject. I did, however, make an offer to extend the period of ten years, which was inserted in order to guard against the danger that has been so frequently pointed out. I am not prepared to accept the substitute of thirty years which the hon. Member proposes, but I am willing to make a compromise, and to insert the word "twenty" instead of "ten."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 4, line 39, after the first "shall" insert "unless let with the consent of the County Council;" Page 5, line 40, at end, add—
  "(8.) Nothing in or done under this section shall derogate from the effect of any building or sanitary bye-laws for the time being in force."
  On Motion of Mr. HALDANE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 11, page 6, line 14, after "a," insert "person having the powers of a."
  On Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 11, page 6, line 20, leave out all after "obtained," to end of Clause.
  On Motion of Mr. HALDANE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 12, page 6, line 23, after "a," insert "person having the powers of a."
  On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 15, page 7, line 18, after "situate," insert "and"; line 19, after "council," insert "and."
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause; 15, page 7, line 24, after "managers," insert "or if the holdings are situate within the limits of a municipal borough, then, instead of the persons selected or appointed as aforesaid, two members of the borough council."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Am I right in understanding that in the case of land inside the limits of a municipal borough, the management is to be composed of two members of the borough, and nobody else?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No; they are in addition.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Amendment I now propose is one which the right hon. Gentleman promised to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer about. It is to omit the words—
  "Not less than three pounds two shillings and sixpence per cent. per annum."
  As the clause stands it binds the Commissioners to lend money at this rate. The consequence will be that if the Treasury can lend money for three per cent. without loss they will be obliged to charge the Local Authority £3 2s. 6d., which means the imposition of a tax upon the Local Authorities of two shillings and sixpence per cent. per annum.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 6, to leave out the words "not less than three pounds two shillings and sixpence per cent."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have to regret the result of the undertaking I gave. I have conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, indeed, I may go so far as to say that I earnestly pressed this upon him. I am bound to say, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave reasons to me, which I thought were quite sufficient to justify him in declining to accede to the proposal. I was very sorry to arrive at that conclusion, because I was anxious to attain the same object as my hon. Friend; but I am consoled by this reflection: that the credit of the County Council is so good, and their borrowing powers so ample, that they are not by any means limited to Government loans. They have ample opportunities of borrowing money for this purpose on favourable terms.
  MR. MORTON: I have a similar Amendment to this down on the Paper. The Government have offered to advance money to Irish tenants at two and three-quarters-per cent., and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the same consideration for the English, Scotch, and Welsh people in this matter. I think this Motion involves an important point, because in my opinion the Bill will be

  77
  of very little use, if any, unless the small holders can borrow money at a low rate of interest. If people are willing to pay a high rate of interest the assistance of an Act of Parliament is unnecessary.
  MR. BARCLAY: I also think some good reasons should be shown for proposing to make the people of Great Britain pay a higher rate of interest for advances than is charged to Irishmen. This Bill is an experiment, and the Treasury ought to be satisfied if they can carry its provisions into effect without making a loss. The amount required will not be so large as to endanger the financial stability of the country, especially in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to pay off a large amount of the National Debt. I think three per cent. ought to be the most that should be charged to these small holders for advances.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I admit that the matter, as far as this particular Bill is concerned, is not one of supreme importance, but from the point of view of the credit of the State and its loan transactions it is of considerable importance. At the present time loans of public moneys are advanced to Local Authorities under a great variety of Acts, and in these Acts a rate of interest is prescribed corresponding to that laid down in the Bill now before the House. For instance, the Sanitary Loans, School Board Loans, and Loans under the Allotment Act, et cetera, are charged three and a-half per cent., when repayable in not more than thirty-five years, and three and three-quarters per cent. when repayable in not more than forty years. Loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act repayable in not more than twenty years are charged three and one-eighth per cent.; for thirty years, three and a quarter per cent.; and for forty years three and three-eighths per cent. Harbour Loans with collateral security of rates are granted at three and a quarter per cent. for any period up to fifty years. If the rate of interest is lowered in this particular case, all these Local Authorities will come down upon the Treasury and Parliament complaining that they are paying excessive rates of interest for their loans. I hope it is
  78
  not thought that I am dealing with this matter in any churlish spirit, and I appeal to hon. Members not to endanger the general system of loans granted by the State for the sake of the very small difference in this particular case. My right hon. Friend. (Mr. Chaplin) has pointed out that the credit of the County Councils is such that they will be probably able to borrow at three per cent.; but, be that as it may, I think I have pointed out to the Committee that strong reasons exist for declining this Amendment, much as I am anxious to promote the general success of the Bill.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said that the County Councils can borrow money at three per cent., and I do not think there will be any difficulty about the matter. It seems quite clear that if the loans were granted in this case at three per cent., no higher rate of interest should be charged to the various other bodies the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 19.
  On Motion of Mr. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton) the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 9, line 35, at end, add "but shall not include mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals, or any right or easement in connection therewith."
  Clause 22.
  On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 11, line 12, leave out "section," and insert "sections"; page 11, line 12, after "ten," insert "eleven and twelve"; Clause 23, page 11, line 18, after "situate," insert "and."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I beg to move—
  In page 11, line 26, after "Committee," insert "or if the holdings are situate within the limits of a burgh, then, instead of the persons elected as aforesaid, two Town Councillors or Commissioners, as the case may be, to be appointed for that purpose by the Town Council or Commissioners of such burgh."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JOHN WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "burgh" refers to a police burgh as well as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh; and, if so, whether he would insert the word "any" before burgh?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I shall have no objection to that.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893.
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,632,350, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893—namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.

  £

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  15,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  8,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  4,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  6,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  3,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  4,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  54,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  20,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  35,000

  Harbours, &c, under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

  3,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  2,000

  Caledonian Canal

  —

  Rates on Government Property

  10,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  20,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  8,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  11,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  13,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  17,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  —

  Board of Agriculture

  5,000

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I am very glad that this Debate has been carried over until to-day, because I am anxious to say a word or two about the Kanaka question, especially after the speech delivered yesterday by the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Baron H. de Worms). I want to put this matter as clearly as I can before the public, who I believe are very much exercised about it, and I consider that the arguments used yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Cornwall, in which he charged us with unduly interfering with the discretion and independence of the Queensland Parliament, require an answer. It is admitted by everyone that up to 1885 the Kanaka traffic was simply a bad form of slavery, and nothing more abominable or disgraceful attached to the British flag than the unspeakable horrors disclosed by the Royal Commission which examined into this matter. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had not a word to say in defence of this traffic up to 1885, and the same may be said of Sir Samuel Griffith. Even Mr. Kinnaird Rose, who was quoted during the debate last evening by the hon. Member opposite, dare not say one word in defence of the horrible atrocities connected with the Polynesian labour traffic up to 1885. Now, the greatest argument that has been used, so far, during the Debate, against our interference with this Kanaka traffic is the independence of the Colonial Parliament. If the English people have no moral obligation in this matter, and no right to interfere, as has been asserted, I ask, were we justified in interfering in 1885? What circumstances would justify this country in-interfering with the free action of an independent colony? Would negro slavery be a good reason? I want hon. Members opposite to answer this question. Speaking for myself, I say plainly that this Kanaka traffic is either what some of us believe it to be—a form of slavery to all intents and purposes—a system cruel, un-Christian, oppressive, and unjust to the coloured races, and, if so, a system Englishmen

    83
    can be no parties to; or else the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies and Mr. Kinnaird Rose are right, and this opposition to it is nothing but a sentimental, philanthropic bubble. These are the words which have been applied to the Motion of my hon. Friend below me (Mr. S. Smith). Now, Sir, no defence or excuse is offered for this traffic up to 1885, but it is argued that no evidence exists of any misconduct or cruelty having taken place since that date. But it should be borne in mind that we have not had a Royal Commission on this question since 1885, and that, therefore, we cannot go to Blue Books and produce unanswerable testimony. I admit there is a lot of conflicting evidence as to the manner in which this traffic has been carried on since 1885. First of all we have the evidence of the missionaries, and I defy the Under Secretary for the Colonies to name a single missionary living on these islands who is in favour of the Kanaka traffic. The right hon. Gentleman asks me for evidence, and I will give it him. A resolution regarding this traffic was passed unanimously on the 20th July, 1889, by thirteen missionaries composing the Mission Synod of the New Hebrides, residing on the Islands. They were well acquainted with the character and results of the traffic, and these are the words that they used—"A traffic which has been and is" (remember this is 1889) "the cause of much sorrow, suffering, and bloodshed on the Islands," and they appealed to the English Government "under no consideration to allow a traffic to be continued so steeped" (this is not in 1885, this is in the present tense) "in deception, in immorality, bloodshed, and suffering." That resolution to my mind is conclusive. You may say we are sentimental philanthropists if you choose. We say the evidence of thirteen missionaries, the only missionaries on the Islands, met in solemn Synod and reporting in 1889 as to what this traffic is, ought to be conclusive, and to hundreds of thousands of Christian folk in England and Scotland it will be conclusive. You did not say one word about that. I did not hear when you were quoting from Bishop Selwyn one
    84
    word about this. You trotted out Bishop Selwyn's letter very complacently, and I almost admired the ability with which you culled from the Blue Book a clause here and a line there out of the Bishop's letter. But what does Bishop Selwyn say? There are paragraphs in his letter every bit as strong in condemnation of this traffic as you will find in the resolution passed by the thirteen missionaries. Listen to what Bishop Selwyn says, and let him answer the Under Secretary as to the labour agents. He says—
    "I have known many of these men, and found some of them men of high character and anxious to do their duty. But too often they are picked up when all other trades have failed. But they have one and all told me that the attempt to do their duty has led to great friction, and it needs an exceptional man to stand the strain of an incessant contest for a faithful fulfilment of the law."
    What does he say about the women?
    "This is the great vice of the trade. The regulations are not sufficiently strict on this subject, and are not enforced with sufficient determination. No unmarried girl should be taken at all; indeed, girls are betrothed so early that it would be difficult to find one. And no married couple should be taken unless it has been ascertained from the people of the village that there is no objection to the woman going, and that she really is the wife of the man who goes with her. The labour vessel is now the handiest means of elopement. A man recruits over night, and tells the captain that his wife will be on the rocks the next morning. In the grey dawn a woman is discovered on the beach; the boat goes in, no questions are asked, and the deserted husband is left to make an 'unprovoked' attack on the next boat that comes in. I can quote instance after instance where this has been the cause of bloodshed."
    Then what does the Bishop say about these self-governing colonies?
    "England is powerless to prevent the action of a self-governing colony, except at the risk of civil war; but she is not powerless to control and guide it, and the strong pressure of public opinion has in years past done much to this end."
    I do not accept that conclusion, but I mention it now. I am quoting from this letter, because I shall allude to it later on. Then the Bishop finishes up his letter by giving a, b, c, d, e, f, g, six or eight special recommendations, which I think the Government ought to insist on enforcing if they allow this traffic to be re-established. I think Bishop Selwyn is a very strong witness on our side, and that we are entitled

    85
    to call him instead of his being claimed by the Under Secretary. But I will now pass from the Bishop and the missionaries, and come to the Admirals. The letter of Admiral Scott on page 5 is absolutely conclusive as to this traffic, and I want the country to understand that this is the evidence of the Admiral in command of the station. Because this is a water question, not a land question. You will not cover it by having excellent regulations on land, but you will be able to cover it by insisting that the Union Jack shall never float over a slave, and refusing to allow this hateful traffic to be carried on, where we have any influence, either by Englishmen or Frenchmen. Admiral Scott was asked for his opinion by the? Queensland Government, and he regrets that it is proposed to introduce Kanaka labour. He says—
    "Proper supervision of recruiting in the Islands appears to be a very difficult matter. All those concerned, such as the Government agent, the master and mates of the vessel, and the recruiting agent, should be highly honourable and trustworthy men, and above all the Government agent who has nominally the entire control."
    Then he goes on in paragraph 5—
    "It is a difficult matter to find men for such service. It is difficult to find masters and mates of vessels who will not strain a point, when by so doing their voyage will be shortened, or the number of the recruits increased."
    The date of this is March, 1892, and it is useless for the Under Secretary, in the face of that letter, to talk about what occurred before 1885. This letter, which is included in the Blue Book issued yesterday, is dated only two months ago. Listen to what the Admiral says as to the way in which these regulations are carried out, and see why he recommends the establishment of depôts. A damning piece of evidence is contained in paragraph 7, which I hope the House will study.
    "I will now touch on the subject of the recruits themselves. I believe that in the majority of cases the recruits are passive agents, the active agents being the chiefs of tribes, head men of villages or communities, and sometimes the recruits themselves."
    This is in March, 1892, from your own Admiral on the station, who virtually says that these men are shipped by their chiefs against their will; and all this long rigmarole of a letter which is
    86
    written by the agent from Mary-borough has no weight with me. If I wanted to be satisfied as to the value of Mr. Kinnaird Rose's letter, there is one line in it which I think should be enough for any hon. Gentleman. What are you going to think of an advocate who deliberately tells his fellow-countrymen that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in every large city of Great Britain who would "passionately yearn for this cruelty and oppression"? Fancy passionately yearning to be sold into slavery by your own chief, shipped off in a labour vessel, taken to a land where you do not understand their language and they do not understand yours; separated from your wife and children; and yet this agent tells us that there are hundreds of thousands of English people who are "passionately yearning" for the treatment meted out to these poor Kanaka savages! The letters of Admiral Scott, Admiral Erskine, and Commodore Goodenough are sufficient evidence to any man who wants to be persuaded as to the abominations of the traffic carried on under the British flag. Under no possible regulations can this traffic be anything else than cruel, oppressive, hateful, and un-Christian. But there is a third witness to whom, I think, the Under Secretary did not allude. You may put a Bishop against the missionaries, and you may play off your Captain Somebody against the Admiral; but now what do you say to Sir William Macgregor? Another Blue Book was issued yesterday along with this one on the Polynesian labour question. It referred to New Guinea, and I think it might be studied with advantage by hon. Members in connection with this question. New Guinea is inhabited by the same class of people as those we are talking about, and it used to supply some of this very labour; and here is a report of what is being done in New Guinea under the British flag, and I say such a report is a credit to the country. We read that Sir William Macgregor has stopped this traffic and that not a single man, woman, or boy is now shipped from New Guinea for this sugar industry. Here is a letter from Sir Samuel Griffith, the official chief

    87
    of Sir William Macgregor, to the Colonial Office:—
    "The Chief Secretary was aware before the appointment of Sir William Macgregor as Administrator of British New Guinea, of his views as to the opportunity which would be afforded in the Possession for making a systematic attempt, such as probably had never been made before, to elevate an almost entirely uncivilised native race without any exploitation of either their land or their capacity for labour."
    He expresses the opinion that Sir William Macgregor's administration has been conspicuously successful, and he goes on:—
    "He is confident that if the future administration of the Possession is continued on the same principles the British rule will prove beneficial to the native races, and advantageous and honourable to the Empire."
    Then if you go to page 11, you find the only conditions on which Sir William allows native labourers to be engaged outside their own country:—
    "If native labourers are engaged for the fishery for periods exceeding one month, the engagement must be entered into before a Resident Magistrate or a Customs officer; and all such labourers must on completion of their engagements be returned to their homes."
    Contrast the glorious and creditable administration of Sir William Macgregor in New Guinea and the wonderful development of the native races under fair and reasonable conditions with the tale of depopulation and misery which we hear from the New Hebrides. This is a witness whose evidence it is impossible to get over if hon. Members will study it and weigh it fairly. I have heard nothing to shake my faith in Sir William Macgregor. I have read very carefully Sir Samuel Griffith's explanation which is published in this Blue Book, and even that does not agree with you. In this very letter he says it is all nonsense about white labour being impossible. It is idle in the face of that for anyone to say that the sugar industry depends upon this horrible cruelty, and I scarcely think the Under-Secretary can have read the Report. This Report is dated 13th February this year, and on page 2 Sir Samuel Griffith gives the reasons which guided him in reference to his policy. He says:—
    88
    "It was answered that tropical agriculture could not be performed by white men, and that the employment of coloured labour was therefore inevitable. This statement I always doubted, and careful inquiries made from time to time led me to reject it altogether."
    A few paragraphs down he says:—
    "It has been proved that in Queensland cane can be grown by white labour—I am aware that this position is still disputed, but it is admitted by most of those liberal-minded planters with whom I have been in communication."
    The whole basis of this Bill is that you have a languishing sugar industry. You cannot oblige the planters to pay the high rate of wages demanded by white men; they will not take Indian coolies because they are sent under regulations which do not apply to these poor islanders, and the traffic is regulated in a way in which the traffic in these islanders is not regulated. The Blue Book is full of suggestive facts. When you come to deal with the figures you find on page 42, the ledger balance stands thus: return passages, £17,935 10s. 6d.; deceased Islanders' estates, £22,920. That I understand is one year's accounts, and an examination of the figures will show any unprejudiced person that the mortality among these islanders is excessive and terrible. I find that boys under sixteen are taken from the islands; on arrival in Queensland they are said to be over sixteen, and no difficulty is met with in landing them. What are the arguments in favour of the traffic? I have alluded to one, the distressed sugar industry, but I do not believe one ever did any good by bolstering up an industry by such means. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that no nation and no cause ever prospered if if it did anything abhorrent to the law of God. The other argument is that of separation. When the late Professor Freeman spoke about "Perish, India"—he never used the words—his speech gave a great deal of offence to many good people who think that we must maintain the British Empire at all hazards and costs, and that the British flag may wave over any law, whether we like it or not. I am glad of this opportunity of uttering my protest upon the matter. If, after studying the matter, the Government are satisfied the new regulation cannot be so framed as to

    89
    make the traffic such as this country can approve, I hope we shall have the courage to say that we will have no part in it, and prevent it by not allowing a single ship loaded with these men to leave the islands; by sending out gunboats and stopping the traffic, as we stopped the slave trade in the Red Sea. It is perfectly absurd to say that if the Government had been earnest in the matter the traffic could not be stopped in three weeks. We should have the support of public opinion through the whole of the British Empire in taking such a course. I know the Government were taken by surprise. I find that in 1889 the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, said—
    "I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this traffic will totally cease at the end of next year."
    That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman then. It is evident that Lord Knutsford—of whom I have the highest opinion—was utterly unaware of the gravity of the question; he was also taken by surprise. The Under Secretary asked what more the Government could have done. I am glad to see they did one thing. I want to read this telegram of the 9th May from Lord Knutsford—
    "I trust your Government will not object to a short delay before issuing licences under the new Act until I can receive and consider the measure and the safeguards with which it is doubtless surrounded."
    Where is the answer to that? There were two telegrams from Sir H. Norman. The first was—
    "Kanaka labour telegrams received; must defer reply until I reach Brisbane about a week hence."
    The second telegram (No. 13), a day or two later, says—
    "Polynesian Labour Act has been sent by mail of 22nd April. Debates in Parliament have been sent by mail of 29th April. Revised regulations go to-day. Every effort will be made to secure reliable agents. I agree in Premier's telegram to Agent General of 11th May, which was communicated to you. Regulations seem adequate."
    Where is one word of answer from Queensland to the representation of the Government? Lord Knutsford was right in sending that telegram, and if the Under Secretary will say the Government will insist on it, and
    90
    see that no licences are issued until they have had an opportunity of considering the regulations and seeing if they are humane, reasonable, and fair, I shall appeal to my hon. Friend not to divide the House. But if he cannot, if we are only a dozen, I hope we shall go into the Lobby as a protest in the name of Christian England against that abominable traffic being re-introduced without due and proper precautions and provisions by the Government that it shall be conducted under such regulations as shall be efficient and successful.
    DR. CLARK: I do not think the history of our interferences in the past has been very creditable, but, notwithstanding that, I do not think the Government have acted in this matter as they should have done, and I shall support the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) if he goes to a Division. Because a Colonial Legislature may pass an Act, we are not bound to support them in the course they take. I do not think the present Parliament of Queensland represents the feeling of that country on this question. The present Premier was opposed to the policy, and the people did not know when the present Parliament was returned that they would start the traffic again. In this question you have to consider Victoria, New South Wales, and the other parts of Australia, and the feelings of those colonies ought to be considered before the Government sanctions this Bill. The proper course would have been for the Colonial Office to have sent a telegram to the Governor instructing him not to approve the Bill till we had considered the matter. The Ministers and Parliaments of Victoria and New South Wales are opposed to the measure, and the Labour Party is opposed to Chinamen, coolies, or Kanakas coming into the country and lowering the standard of comfort, as in Sydney. I know the history of the traffic fairly well, and some of the worst aspects of it have not been brought before the Committee by my hon. Friend. I think he was mistaken in his statement that the Queensland Government gave licence to white men to kill natives.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: The case occurred a long time ago, and my informant was a gentleman who lived there a long time. I do not associate myself with the statement, and perhaps it was a mistake to make it in the House.
    DR. CLARK: I am glad my hon. Friend has withdrawn, because I feel sure he was mistaken. So far as I can gather the blacks were more often the aggressors than the whites, and are now. The real iniquity of this business, however, was the Intestates Estates Act of 1877. The Kanakas came over for a three, five, seven, or ten years' period of servitude, and their wages were kept by the planters to the end of the term. If they died before the end of the term the money went into the planter's pocket. The result was that towards the end of the term the mortality became considerable. By the Act of 1885 the planters were compelled to pay the wages into a fund, and by the last Act to send the money to the relatives of the Kanakas on the islands. With reference to the sugar question, wherever you have tropical sugar grown you have imported labour. After the abolition of slavery you imported coolies into Natal and the West Indies. That was done under a system to which nobody could object, but you have not the same care and provision so far as the Kanakas are concerned. Many of them are practically sold by their chiefs, and do not know what they are doing or where they are going. I do not think the planters, however, are very bad, or that they would do anything to get rid of their men; they probably treat them as well as the hands. But there is undoubtedly a very high mortality. Even from the Returns before the House the reported mortality is admittedly over sixty per thousand. This is not the mortality of men, women, and children, but it is the reported mortality of adult men and women. Can you point to any place in the world where the mortality is equal to that? Under these circumstances I think every care should be taken to see whether the present Queensland Parliament represents the Queensland people in reference to this matter. To take an illustration: The present Conservative Government, I think, came into power
    92
    in 1886 pledged against land purchase in Ireland. They have passed an Act for land purchase in Ireland. I think it would have been a wise thing if the Imperial Parliament had not given its consent to that measure, and if the Ministry had been sent back to their constituencies to see if they would support them or not. I believe that if Sir Samuel Griffith and his Ministry came before the people on the question of the maintenance of this labour traffic the probability is that they would be defeated, and that the Queensland people, and the South Australian and New Zealand people, as well as the people of Victoria, would go dead against this policy. I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because the Government have aided and abetted the Queensland Ministry in the course they have taken, without trying to ascertain whether the present Ministry or Parliament represents the Queensland people in the matter; and I do not think they do. I know both New Zealand and Victoria, and I really think that the Imperial Parliament ought not to permit any of these colonies to take such a serious step as this, which would hamper and restrict the growth and prosperity of Australia as a whole. So far as these men are concerned I have been on these sugar plantations, and have seen the Kanakas on their own islands and on the plantations; and I do not think their labour is a cheap or efficient kind of labour. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will be astonished when I tell him that £6 is high wages. It is about two-shillings and fourpence a week, and they are provided with food and houses. So that practically these Kanaka labourers get about two shillings and sixpence a week and food and lodging as well. On a large number of the sugar plantations they are doing away with these island labourers. They prefer to have white or Chinese labourers,. as they are much more efficient, and they find it pays better to employ them. The same thing has occurred in Natal. There are plenty of Kaffir labourers there; but they find that the Indian labourers are much more efficient. I believe if the people of Queensland could be fairly canvassed on this matter they would throw out the Ministry and go

    93
    in for the development of this sugar industry by white labour only. There is a strong feeling that Queensland ought not to be a country for coloured men, and that they should not have an importation of labour there which will bring down the standard of comfort.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Perhaps the Committee will bear with me for a few moments upon the ground that it is only a few months ago since I was in this very Colony of Queensland, and that for twenty years I have had experience of this Kanaka question. I have visited the plantations and taken part in many discussions on the treatment of these labourers. As the result of my experience I may say that many years ago, no doubt, great outrages took place; but by the firm action of the Government of Queensland all these outrages have practically ceased. The Government now from practical experience take such precautions as will prevent these outrages. As regards the point raised by the last speaker, hon. Members will understand that Queensland is an enormous country. The southern or more habitable part of Queensland is represented by an enormous majority of Members. My friend, Sir Samuel Griffith, the Prime Minister, represents a Southern constituency, which is very largely composed of working men. The Labour Party have an enormous majority in that colony; and the demands of labour became so outrageous that the whole of the sensible people of Queensland stood out like one man against their demands. In the northern parts of Queensland the climate is extremely hot—I myself have property there. I have lived in there, and my experience is this—that it is not a country for a white man to live in or to till. No matter what Sir Samuel Griffith may have said in former years, he knows as well as I do that the climate is so hot that a white man cannot cultivate the soil. It is absolutely impossible. Black labour is therefore necessary. I had the greatest difficulty in getting white men to look after cattle and sheep. Under these circumstances, as it has been found that the sugar industry is very profitable, they must necessarily have recourse to this
    94
    legislation. Though always opposed to it before, they find that the time has arrived for introducing black labour, and the result has been the re-introduction of this matter by Sir Samuel Griffith for the reason already given—namely, that the climate in North Queensland is so very hot that it is absolutely impossible for any white man to cultivate the soil.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I quoted from the Blue Book which was circulated as a Parliamentary Paper yesterday, in which Sir Samuel Griffith explains his reasons, and in which he says that after careful consideration for years he has come to the conclusion, in which all intelligent planters agree, that white labour is quite possible.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: A statement such as that in the face of my practical experience seems to me extraordinary. I declare that if hon. Members will look at the temperature they will find that it is impossible for any white man to cultivate the soil in North Queensland. ("Why, why?") Because of the heat of the place.
    A hon. MEMBER: The middle of the day?
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: The climate is of such a character that no white man can go out in the middle of the day. I believe the black men will be well treated, and that they will be well looked after. In my opinion the restrictions will be carefully enforced. In fact, I consider them too severe on the planters. I regret to say that since I left Australia ten years ago, there has come over Australia a spirit of independence; and I am quite prepared to say that any interference on the part of this House will rouse a feeling of indignation in Australia of which hon. Members may have no conception. The idea of sending British ships to prevent these labourers from leaving their islands will be received with derision in the Southern waters. There does not exist on the face of the earth a more capable or more intelligent set of men than the public men in Australia. I beg the House not to interfere with the people of Queensland in their action, and I pledge my word that no outrages will occur, and that the most kindly feeling will exist between individual labourers and their employers.

    95
    The restrictions, as I have already said, owing to the very strong feeling which exists in favour of the labourers, are so great that if I were a planter I should hesitate before I employed labour under those conditions. I remember in 1875 that I was in Queensland when the new regulations were passed, and a large number of the labourers were re-employed and made fresh engagements for a number of years. That shows that these people were not ill-treated; and those who wished were sent back to their homes. Public feeling is so strong, there are so many intelligent men in the Colony, and there are so many intelligent newspapers there, that it would be absolutely impossible for outrages to occur without being telegraphed throughout the country. I thank the Committee, for having listened to me, and I conclude by expressing the hope that it will not interfere with this traffic.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) was more than justified in bringing this subject before the House. He has initiated a most interesting and, I think I may also say, a very useful Debate. But I am sure the House will agree with me that in touching upon this question we are treading upon very delicate ground. Whatever may be said, we cannot ignore this fact, that the Queensland Parliament is the Parliament of a self-governing colony, a colony particularly jealous of any interference. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) says we have not ascertained the feeling of the Queensland people upon the subject. How are we to ascertain the feelings of the Queensland people except by looking to the decisions of the Queensland Parliament? Surely the hon. Member would not go so far as to say we are bound to insist on having another Dissolution in Queensland and taking a plébiscite on this question. I am sure the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), who is a good Home Ruler, will feel that it is a most dangerous thing to interfere in any way with the action of a country to which you have given self-government—to take away with the one hand what you have given with the other. I quite
    96
    agree this is a very special and exceptional case. This traffic is carried on under the British flag, of which this Parliament is the guardian. It is of the greatest importance, therefore, that we should look thoroughly into the question whether the facts which undoubtedly existed in times past do exist, or would exist, under the regulations that the Queensland Government have issued. On that question there is an immense amount of conflicting evidence. There is the evidence of Dr. Paton, and of Mr. Hume Nisbet—though I am bound to say Mr. Nisbet deals with a period of six years ago. On the other hand, there is a very important letter from Bishop Selwyn. I would call attention to this fact: that several of the objections urged by the Bishop have been expressly met by the amended regulations. The Bishop sums up the whole of the case for and against this traffic, and he does it in these words:—
    "I have said enough to show that, though it is not the slavery it is described as being, and though the Government have tried, to a large extent, to do their duty, yet that there are serious abuses connected with it. The question is whether these abuses are so bad that they outweigh the certain amount of good, or whether they can be so met as to leave the trade one that Englishmen need not be ashamed of."
    But it is contended that the sugar industry would perish. I say a thousand times better that the sugar industry should perish than that the British flag should protect a traffic like the Slave Trade. The question really resolves itself into this: Can we remedy these abuses so that this shall be a trade of which the English people need not be ashamed? I read the evidence in the Blue Book very carefully, and it seems to me it would be premature at the present moment to come to the conclusion that the trade was one in which we should interfere. I admit our right to interfere. Still, is it not clear upon the evidence which we have before us that the trade is one of which the Imperial Parliament, in the interests and to the honour of this country and of the British flag, need be ashamed, for that is what it really means? I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a Division, for, having had the honour of holding an office of a responsible kind for some time, I

    97
    shall not be able to vote for it. After most carefully considering the matter, I think it would be premature for the Government to take such a step as my hon. Friend suggests in his Motion at the present moment before we have seen the revised regulations. As the matter now stands, the Act has been approved by Sir Henry Norman. The only thing open to us is to ask the Queen to exercise her power to disallow it. That is the course which my hon. Friend proposes by his Motion. I say that if he means that by his Motion—and it can mean nothing else—such an action on the part of the Imperial Parliament would be viewed with great jealousy not only by the people of Queensland, but also by the whole of the people of Australia. Under these circumstances, I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Motion to a Division, because I cannot help thinking that the effect of it would be to do a great harm to our Imperial position.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I am always sorry when a right hon. Gentleman who has held office, especially when he sits on this side of the House, gets up to speak, because he generally concludes by saying that he will be obliged to vote with the Government. I am at a little loss to know why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) spoke at all. His remarks are always very interesting; but as it was a foregone conclusion that, having held office, he would vote with the Government, it took the gilt off the gingerbread of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not think I have assisted at any Debate for some considerable time in this House that has evoked so much feeling—smothered feeling, it is true, but always smouldering there. I fancy I detected faint rumblings of what I believe will become thunderings when we get the next Parliament to discuss the labour question, because behind the arras of the Polynesian labour traffic—behind the philanthropic aspirations of those whom I honour for their philanthropy and for the good they do—there is undoubtedly the rat of the labour question. (Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I will lay a few facts before them which
    98
    I think will induce them to believe that my view of the case, to some extent, is correct. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion on this question during this Debate. We have a Utopia or New Atlantis described by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, who depicted such an Arcadia in Queensland that I wonder hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House did not take passages at once for Queensland, and enter themselves for those plantations. Then we had the statement of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence), who said that whatever excessive mortality there was amongst these labourers was caused by the excessive number of mutton chops and beef steaks that were pushed down their throats. But I wish to say a word or two upon the question from a somewhat different standpoint from that from which it has been approached by some hon. Members. A considerable amount of capital is, attempted to be made out of the statements of the Prime Minister of Queensland, and objections have been raised by hon. Members who have been in Australia as to the expediency, even if it has the right, of this House interfering with a self-governing colony in a question of this sort. There seems, as has already been said, something behind the speeches of these hon. Gentlemen, and the real reason seems to be that they desire to avoid "a yellow agony" in these colonies. I would ask the Committee to listen to what Mr. Kinnaird Rose, of Edinburgh, writes on this question. He is not antagonistic to the traffic, and thinks that under strict regulations the evils of the traffic can be minimised. In his letter he makes this remarkable statement:—
    "Having fairly and fully answered the humanitarian and philanthropic objectors to the action of the Queensland Parliament, I turn to the politico-economic opponents who, despite their Home Rule principles for home consumption, urge the Imperial veto of domestic legislation in a distant colony. In the same category, of course, are the movers and supporters of the condemnatory resolutions in the New South Wales and Victorian Parliaments. The strings of opposition are pulled both here and at the Antipodes by the labour leaders of the new Unionism or their sympathisers and abettors."
    But when we further read the letter we find that the wish to re-open this traffic

    99
    is only the desire of a gang of sugar planters, who, finding that the white men absolutely refuse to work in the tropical swamps almost incidental to the cultivation of sugar, desire to continue their profits at the expense of human suffering by a trade which has been designated, almost as slavery and which if not slavery I must characterise as a blot on those principles which all of us have been proud hitherto to hold. He says—
    "White labourers refused to work in the field or were prohibited by the Unions from working at rates which agriculture can bear."
    The "rates which agriculture can bear" are to be fixed by that same gang of planters. He goes on—
    "Without labour the cane could not be grown, harvested, or converted into sugar. More than one-fourth of the agricultural land in Queensland under tillage would be thrown out of cultivation and allowed to revert to jungle. Several thousand white men engaged in sugar mills as overseers, sugar boilers, engineers, smiths, foremen, &c, and in the open as ploughmen, overseers, draymen, &c, would be thrown out of employment. The foundries at Mackay, Bundaberg, Townsville, Maryborough, and Brisbane, employing many hundreds of skilled artizans, would be shut up. The markets in the southern parts of the colony for maize, horses, food supplies, &c. on the sugar plantations would be closed. Graziers whose runs are already over-stocked with tat cattle would have another outlet cut off."
    So that it appears that because of this contest between graziers and sugar planters this House is asked not to give its veto upon this traffic. It also states—
    "No honest, no sane Government could calmly face the impending crushing ruin, the destruction of a great industry, the throwing (wholly or partially) idle of thousands of the beat and most active of the population."
    When, however, I turn to the speeches which have recently been delivered in the Australian Legislatures, I find that a great change comes o'er the spirit of the dream in connection with this question. The labour party is antagonistic to Sir Samuel Griffith, and the leaders of that party are convinced that under certain conditions sugar plantations can be carried on by white labour, even in the latitude of Northern Queensland. I do not think that even Sir Samuel Griffith can get the Bill passed in the Queensland Legislature without considerable truck-
    100
    ling to popular opinion. It may be that he and his Government do not represent the democratic spirit of the colony. Now, the Under Secretary for the Colonies referred last night to the wages paid in Queensland, and he tried to make us believe that £17,000 had been deposited in the banks there as the result of Kanaka labour. But he omitted to say to whose credit it had been banked. Was it to that of the Kanaka labourers working in the colony, or to that of the Kanakas who had become colonists in Queensland, who had acquired the rights of citizens? I would ask the Committee to consider whether it is good for the colony that this sugar industry should be continued in it under existing conditions; also whether it would not be more profitable to break up the land among smaller white farmers? I am sure from practical experience in the northern parts of Brazil, and in the States of Louisville and Texas, that sugar and even cotton can be cultivated by white men who conform to the conditions of life required in the tropics, and who do not, as we have been told the Kanakas do, stuff themselves with too much meat and whiskey. Now, a good deal of capital has been made out of the declarations of Bishops and missionaries. I do not know that I have hitherto had a great deal of sympathy with Bishops or missionaries. I respect missionaries who go out to savage countries in order to reclaim the people there; but I need not remind the Committee that when the Debates for the abolition of slavery in the West Indies took place in the other House, almost every Bishop voted for the retention of such a sacred institution. When also the question of continuing the practice of pigeon shooting was under consideration, nearly every Bishop voted in favour of its continuance. Therefore, I am not inclined to attach much importance to the testimony of Bishops. Before sitting down I would point out that the re-introduction of coloured labour into the colonies will go far towards re-opening the whole racial question as between this country and the colonies. It will do more. It will discourage all future efforts to civilise the back lying lands in the colonies. It is impossible for

    101
    white cultivators to compete against Chinese coolies and labourers from the Pacific Islands, whose standard of comfort is infinitely lower than that of the white man. Thus, instead of spreading civilisation—if it be a good thing—about which I have never been able to convince myself—
    An hon. MEMBER: Spurious civilisation.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: We are doing our best to put it back. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that they should accede to the very temperate requests made from this side of the House; and if they cannot see their way to totally disallow the re-opening of this traffic, that they should do something to establish a protectorate over the Solomon Islands and the New Hebrides, from which the greater number of the labourers for the Queensland plantations are drawn. I think it is a scandal and a disgrace that white men who have been kicked out of civilisation should practically be able to inundate the white population of the colony with coloured labour from the Pacific Islands. It is monstrous to imagine that civilised powers like France and Germany should for a moment object to combine with us in the regulation of this traffic. Under any circumstances I believe that a response would be drawn from the working classes of Australia, which would more than counterbalance the monopolists of the Queensland sugar plantations, who, in many cases, are absentees from their own country, and are always saying in London Clubs that Australia is going to the dogs.
    MR. JOHN A. BRIGHT: I think it is the general opinion of Members of this House that this traffic is a very bad and dangerous one, and that we should all be pleased if we could see our way to prohibit it entirely. A trade which has to be carried on by armed force is not one that can be regarded with much favour by the inhabitants of the islands from which these unfortunate labourers are taken. I received a letter a few days ago from a friend of mine who was some years ago engaged in planting in Queensland. There is no necessity for me to give his
    102
    name, because he is not publicly known, but he wrote to me and urged upon me the importance of doing all I possibly could to stop what he called this "atrocious traffic." During the time he was out there in a subordinate capacity he was obliged to wink at very bad things which he could not prevent. The condition of the labourers was most painful, and still more that of the women who had been imported to the plantations. We have heard from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies that probably we have no power to prevent this traffic, and that to disallow this Bill would be a very strong measure. That is probably the fact of the case, but I think we might do something short of that. We might utter a strong remonstrance, or, at any rate, a strong warning to the Government of Queensland that public opinion in this country will be in a watchful state to see whether the abuses which undoubtedly existed there not long ago do not occur again. It seems to me that, although we may not be able to interfere with the acts of the Queensland Government, we may do something in regard to the districts from which these poor people are brought. If there are difficulties with other Foreign Powers who claim some interest in these is lands, it would be easy to approach them, and to request them to assist us in the cause of humanity, by making some arrangement by which people who are taken away from these islands shall be somehow protected, that there should be some authority to see they are returned, and are properly treated while in Queensland. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury will tell us whether he can enter into communication with foreign countries on this point.
    *EARL COMPTON: We were asked by the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me (Mr. Osborne Morgan) not to go to a Division; and, speaking for myself and other hon. Members who brought this matter forward, I can say that we are not anxious to go to a Division if that can be avoided. We thoroughly understand the difficulty of disallowing a Bill passed by a self-governing Colony, but we have insisted from the beginning on the absolute necessity of a protest

    103
    being made on the part of the House of Commons against any possibility whatever of a slave traffic being re-introduced into Queensland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he cannot still continue the line of policy adopted by Lord Knutsford in his telegram of 9th May. There is no question there of disallowing the Act; there is only a courteous request to the Queensland Government to delay the issue of licences until the Government have received and considered what, after all, is the kernel of the whole question—the safeguards. Without those safeguards I consider we certainly ought to take the extreme measure of disallowing the Bill the Queensland Government have passed. We have, I believe, the right to do so. At all events, if we have not that right, we ought to spare no effort to prevent it being said that the House of Commons in the year 1892 has allowed without protest one of our colonies to re-introduce the slave trade. We still feel, in the words of Lord Knutford's telegram, considerable apprehension, our apprehension not being removed by this discussion or by the answer to the telegram. I find at the end it is said—
    "The sugar industry already shows great revival, and it is a matter of importance to afford every facility to supply the labour as soon as passed."
    The matter before us, however, is not the supply of labour; the question of import ance to this country is whether that labour can be supplied under proper conditions or not. We have no proof whatever that it can be so supplied. On the contrary, we have proof that in the past these conditions have absolutely failed. We want to know the new conditions. If the Government will continue that policy as far as they can; if they will impress upon the Queensland Government that we view with great apprehension their passing of this law; if the Queensland Government will persuade us, by sending the new restrictions, that those restrictions are worthy of the trial, then I think we should not go to a Division this evening. I ask for an assurance from the First Lord that something will be done in this direction.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rise, because the noble Lord has appealed directly to me, but I do not propose to go over the ground traversed by previous speakers. I would point out to the noble Lord and his friends that the position of the Home Government with the Colonial Government is-this—we have the power of disallowing, the Act altogether, but we have no power to suspend the regulations under the Act while we consider whether those regulations are adequate or inadequate. It might, perhaps, have been inferred from Lord Knutsford's telegram that the regulations could be suspended until sent home for discussion by Parliament, but that is not the case. The regulations are now in full force, and the only method of action we have—and which I think every speaker in this House has repudiated—is direct intervention by way of veto upon the action of the Colonial Government. The noble Lord is anxious—and, I think, rightly anxious — that the Queensland Government should be aware how strong is the desire in this country that there should be no abuse of a traffic with regard to which we all admit that abuse is possible and has actually occurred, and which may easily occur again unless adequate regulations are established. Anyone who reads the Debate that took place last night will be convinced that this country and this Imperial Parliament feels keenly on the subject, and that the manifestation of that feeling will depend upon the practicability of the means and measures to be adopted for dealing with the possible evils of the traffic. We are all agreed that this traffic has produced evils in the past, and may produce evils in the future, and it is the business of the Colonial Government, and, to a certain extent, also of ourselves, to see that these evils are not allowed to be repeated. I feel convinced that what has occurred in this House will have an effect in the direction desired by the noble Lord, and I do not think anything further need be said on the subject to strengthen the impression of what occurred yesterday and what has ranspired to-day.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I quite admit the delicacy of this question, and I feel the extreme responsibility of urging upon the Government action that might create collision with the self-governing colonies. I had hoped, however, that the Government would have been able to say a little more—that they would have agreed to a despatch setting forth the strong feeling felt in this country of the great jealousy with which this country will watch a renewal of the traffic. However, I gather from the remarks of the First Lord that he is quite aware of the extreme risks connected with this traffic, and that the eye of the Government will be closely fixed upon the doings of Queensland, and that the instructions given to the Admiralty will be of such a nature as to promote constant vigilance, and that we retain the full power of, if necessary, disallowing this traffic. With that understanding I will not insist upon my Motion. I believe that much good will result from the discussion. I may say I regret, if during the heat of Debate, I have uttered any language likely to cause offence to the people of Queensland. To some extent I was speaking of the past. As to the future I express the hope that the people of Queensland will not do anything likely to cause a flush of shame to the old mother country. I shall not offer any further objection to the Vote.
    MR. CREMER: On a point of order, am I to undenstand that an hon. Member who has proposed to reduce a Vote can withdraw an Amendment without the sanction of the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion has not been withdrawn because it has not been made again to-day. It was made last night, and according to the usual practice it has now lapsed.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Then I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500, as an expression of our dislike of this traffic. I really wonder the hon. Member has so trifled with the time of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £7,000, for the Colonial Office, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: As one who has had practical experience in Queensland, I should like to address the Committee on this subject. I quite followed what was stated by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) last night, and agree that there were considerable abuses in Queensland in the sixties and possibly in the seventies. At the commencement of the traffic the Government were necessarily hampered by the lack of proper regulations, but we must take matters as they are and not as they were. There can be no doubt that in former days the Colonial Government were to some extent to blame for that. But since then things have altered materially. Looking back to the year 1882, we find a strong feeling existed in the colony against anything like coloured labour, whether Chinese, Polynesian, or any other sort, and the working classes there, exercising their electoral rights, successfully opposed the return to the House of Representatives of anyone who was in favour of black labour. But what do we find now? The present Colonial Treasurer, who was strongly opposed to this Kanaka traffic in 1882, was returned by a large majority at a bye-election only a few weeks ago for a constituency close to the metropolis of the colony, because he pronounced in favour of this system of labour in the Northern Provinces. Sir Samuel Griffith was also strongly opposed to the Kanaka labour in 1882, and why? Because the working classes were opposed to it. At that time it was a political question in the colony—it was not looked at from a humanitarian point of view—and as such it was dealt with by the Legislature. Now, however, we find that the workmen in Queensland, thanks to liberal land laws and liberal mining laws, are enabled to earn a livelihood without working in the cane fields and cotton fields. In fact, they could not perform that work for more than three or four months in a year, and not even for that period at the necessary time. Therefore, if the sugar industry is to be encouraged in Queensland, it must be carried on by coloured labour. There is no doubt that when these Kanakas were first taken to

    107
    the colony they did pine for their wives and homes, and wondered if ever they would get back to them again. But now that they have been, educated, as it were, and understand the conditions of their agreement they look upon the matter differently, and I have known many instances of Kanakas being sent to their homes after three years, in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Queensland Government, going on board the steamer again the moment after landing and returning for a further period of service. A great deal has been said about only £6 per year being given them, but it seems to be forgotten that in addition to that they receive their rations. Plenty of poor creatures in this country would, I believe, be only too glad to accept £6 a year if they were also properly fed. I feel perfectly certain that Sir Samuel Griffith, who is a kind hearted man, will take every possible care to prevent any such abuses as have happened in the past occurring in future. After the statement of the First Lord and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies I hope the Committee will not go to a Division; but if it does I shall, for the first time, vote with the Government, and I shall do so, because I consider that Kanakas are taken better care of in Queensland than miners are in this country.
    MR. CREMER: I have listened with the utmost regret to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because I recollect having heard the same kind of arguments nearly thirty years ago on the question of human slavery in the United States of America. It is the old story about the slave being better fed, clothed and housed than he would be in a state of freedom. I am satisfied that scarcely anyone in this House—except the hon. Member—will be deluded by any such sentiments. Although I have no mandate from the masses of the people to speak on this subject I feel sure that they do not object to the introduction of foreign labour into this country, or into the colonies, so long as it is brought in under free conditions and not in a state of semi-servitude. It is because these Kanakas are imported into Queensland with the one object of
    108
    keeping down the wages of white labour in that colony—
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: No, no!
    MR. CREMER: It does not follow that because the hon. Member has been to the colony he knows all about it. I have heard, Mr. Courtney, of men who after going round the world come back to their own fireside as ignorant as when they started. I do not say that that is the case with the hon. Member. Well, Sir, what we object to is that these men should be imported into Queensland, under conditions of servitude, with the one object of keeping down the wages of the white population there. I am glad that owing to the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cuninghame Graham), and notwithstanding that those who raised the discussion on this subject have thought it advisable, at the last moment, to withdraw their proposal, we are about to divide on this question; and if there are only a dozen of us to go into the Lobby, I hope we shall have the courage of our opinions, and record our protest against this traffic.
    MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: I should not like to give a silent vote on this question. I shall vote with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because I think it is impossible to carry on this Kanaka traffic without the evils which have been alluded to. If no abuse occurs within the next three or six months I believe it is sure to show itself sooner or later, and believing that I shall vote against the Government.
    Question put.
    (6.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 197.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
    Original Question again proposed.

    NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES DISPUTE.
    MR. MORTON: I have a Notice of Motion on the Colonial Vote having reference to the Newfoundland Fisheries question. On the 17th I put a question to the Colonial Under Secretary in regard to what had recently happened in the Newfoundland Legislature. I then asked whether the Newfoundland Assembly had rejected the "French

    109
    Shore Bill," and whether it was the fact that after three of the delegates had left this country alterations had been made in the Bill by two of the delegates and the Colonial Office in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering me, said he could not properly reply to me in an answer to a question, and it is on account of that I have put down a Notice of reduction to the Vote for the purpose, if possible, of getting some little further information as to the alterations made in the Bill after the majority of the delegates had left this country. Of these alterations I am aware the people in the colony made great complaints, and I believe it was on account of these alterations that the Bill was rejected in the Legislature by a large majority, composed of both Parties, a few weeks ago. The great complaint, as I understand from communications I have received from Newfoundland in regard to these alterations—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right in my view, and I do not intend to occupy many minutes, for I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position now to give a full answer—the great complaint is as to the means appointed in the Bill for the creation of a Court to deal with fishery disputes. The colonists complain that Commissioners are to be appointed by the Home Government and not by their own Government, but more especially it is a matter of strong complaint from the colonists that there is no appeal to a Superior Court in the colony from these Foreign Commissioners, as I might call them; the only appeal is to the Privy Council in this country. To offer such an appeal as this to poor fishermen 3,000 or 4,000 miles away is a somewhat ridiculous proceeding; there might as well be no appeal at all. The people say this is an attempt to coerce the fishermen of Newfoundland in the interests of French fishermen. Whether they are right or not in making that complaint I do not know, but it appears to me the Government would do well in the event of the matter being raised again in the Newfoundland Legislature, to consent to the institution of an appeal from the decisions of the Commis-
    110
    sioners to a Superior Court in the colony. I do not want to talk out the matter now, and will take up no more time. I hope we may have a few words from the right hon. Gentleman, containing an assurance that the utmost consideration shall be given to the wishes of this, our oldest colony, in a matter of this kind.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): As regards the question raised by the hon. Member, and as to which he put a question to me on the 17th instant, I have only to say that as it is one involving most delicate and difficult negotiations with France, and also affecting the relations between the Colony and the Mother Country, any discussion in this House at the present stage on matters still pending would be improper and most prejudicial to the public interest. I must, therefore, respectfully decline to take any part in the Debate should the hon. Member raise it, but I feel sure that after this statement he will not desire to do so.
    DR. TANNER: With special reference to the complaint of Mr. Baird, who has a lobster factory on St. George's Bay, I should like to ask how comes it that the poorer fishermen receive such bad treatment at the hands of the British authorities—they receiving no compensation, while the wealthier traders do obtain a certain amount of redress of their grievances? In the last two Sessions I raised this question, and tried to do my best—
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  DR. CLARK: I regret that the Government have not seen fit to deal with the question of differential Income Tax, but if they would give us some statement that they will be prepared in future Budgets to consider the question we might allow this Bill to pass now. When the matter was discussed early this morning objection was taken to the form of the Amendment proposed, and not to the principle; and perhaps the Government will now tell us they will be prepared to introduce some relief for smaller industrial incomes. We owe it to the initiative of the late Sir Stafford Northcote that some differential treatment was introduced, and I hope we may have an assurance that there is no objection to the further application of the principle.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, when framing his next Budget, give careful consideration to the views expressed and arguments used by hon. Members in the recent discussion.
  DR. TANNER: Without wishing to go back on last night's discussion upon the tax on industrial incomes, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give countenance to the principle of a rebate upon professional incomes, and I have particularly in mind that profession to which I have the honour to belong. As a matter of fact, no professional men do more work for nothing than do medical men. Here in the City of London there is more medical work without payment than most people are aware of, and the same thing is true of Edinburgh. From the necessities of the case their incomes must vary very considerably, and I, speaking from a certain amount of experience, assert that inquiry would show that no profession or trade is more harshly treated under the incidence of the Income Tax than is the medical profession. I seize the opportunity to make these few crude and hasty remarks in the hope that they may induce some little consideration in the future.
  *MR. MORTON: I do not desire to stop the Third Reading of this Bill now, but I take the opportunity of complaining of the way in which it has been forced through the House. We were told we should have the opportunity of discussing the incidence of the Income Tax and the House Duty; but, as a matter of fact, that discussion was only entered upon after twelve o'clock, and proper opportunity for discussion cannot be said to have been given. So I gather; for I did not take the trouble to attend, as I did not think it was the fitting time for such a discussion. I am sorry the Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity of doing something to show they have some sympathy for those who work for small and precarious incomes. The pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that full opportunity should be afforded to discuss his Budget Resolutions have been broken, and I am very sorry this should have been so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: In calling the attention of the House—I hope for a brief period—to the Resolution which stands in my name, I think hon. Members, and especially those representing county constituencies, will

  113
  agree with me that there is a longstanding grievance against the Post Office Department with reference to the postal arrangements in some of our rural parishes, and they will realise the importance of this matter. It is disagreeable to myself to be obliged in any way to criticise one of our most efficient public services. The country may generally speaking be proud of the way in which our postal arrangements are carried out, and I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree with me that if there are any defects in our postal arrangements it is right that the attention of the House should be called to these defects, that we by discussion may find the remedy. But first I desire to place on record my opinion, and I think I may say the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House, that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General during the time he has held his present office has done his utmost to meet as far as it has been in his power to do so the complaints made to him in this direction. But my right hon. Friend, as we all know, has had the difficulty other Postmasters General have had to contend with: he is bound by Treasury red tape—he, no more than his predecessors, has had a free hand in carrying out his desires. In the first place let me set the minds of hon. Members at rest on one point. In bringing this matter before the House, I in no way wish to suggest that any increased work should be imposed upon rural postal messengers, who have at the present time very hard and difficult tasks to perform; but on the contrary I would suggest changes by which their labour, very heavy on certain occasions, should be lightened to a considerable extent. As hon. Members know, at election times the work is so heavy that it is impossible for these messengers to give satisfaction in all directions. Our attention has been constantly called to cases in which voters have never received their voting cards, simply on account of the way in which deliveries of letters are conducted in rural parishes. I have had a vast number of letters from all parts of England complaining of
  114
  the rural postal arrangements, and in many cases requesting that I will make individual grievances known. Of course, it is not my intention to do this, but with the permission of the House, I will quote a few extracts from the correspondence to illustrate the necessity for reform in these postal arrangements. It will be convenient if I divide the subject into heads, and first, I shall call attention to the necessity for extending the system of free delivery in rural parishes; secondly, to the want of extension of the telegraph system throughout the country, and if possible that the obnoxious system of hon. Members being compelled to ask their constituents to find guarantees for the establishment of new telegraph offices may be abolished; thirdly, I shall refer to the want of an extension of offices for the transaction of Savings Hank business; fourthly, to the need of more money order and postal order offices; fifthly, I shall call attention to the want in many villages of an increased number of pillar boxes or wall collecting boxes; and lastly, I shall ask the House to consider the question to which I attach great importance, and to which the late Mr. Raikes gave special attention, the granting of increased facilities for the sending by post of agricultural produce, whether by small holders, allotment holders, or farmers generally, of fruit, eggs, butter, flowers and other produce. As regards the first subject, there can be no doubt of the inconvenience felt and the want of an absolutely free delivery of letters within a certain radius of the village post office. In the ordinary rural parish the squire or leading inhabitant has his post bag, and I make no appeal on his behalf; he is rich enough to pay for accommodation, and can get his letters early in the morning, and can pay for facilities for delivery. At other houses within a certain radius and within the village proper letters are delivered free and with regularity, and I hear no complaints in that direction. But at farms and labourers' cottages outside the radius from the post office of a mile and a half or two miles the delivery of letters is conducted on what I may describe as a happy-go-lucky, hap

  115
  hazard system. I hope my right hon. Friend will not be shocked at my using such terms, but I can prove to him as absolute fact that in a great number of rural parishes those who want to have their letters delivered regularly cannot ensure that regularity unless they pay something over and above the postage paid by the sender. In some places there is a daily delivery at uncertain times, in other cases there is a delivery three times or twice a week, and in other places there is absolutely no free delivery at all. I dare say this statement will rather astonish some Members, and when I have mentioned these things in conversation what I can prove to be the fact has scarcely been credited—that in many cases outside a radius of from one and a half to two miles from the post office the payment of the postage does not ensure the delivery of letters. This is felt to be a great grievance by labourers, artizans, and others, whose friends naturally expect that their letters will be delivered as addressed. That is not the case—the penny stamp does not cover the expense, and before the receiver obtains his letter, as I will show from extracts from letters I have received, he has to pay a fee of sometimes one halfpenny, sometimes one penny, and even in some cases two-pence on each letter. This comes hard upon the poor hard-working labourer in rural districts. As I said just now, in some cases there is no delivery at all, the letters being left at some village shop, or they are dropped at some corner house at cross roads, or some house the mail cart passes, where they remain until called for. The House will be astonished to hear—and I regret that the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) is not present to hear the statement—it is a frequent occurrence that by arrangement with the Post Office letters are left at public-houses or beer-houses, where the inhabitants must call and receive them. Usually children are sent by their parents to get the letters, and I say it is nothing short of a scandal according to our views in these days that attendance at a public-house should be so associated with the delivery of letters through the
  116
  Post Office. It is the case, though I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact. The working classes look upon the penny stamp as a binding contract between themselves and the Post Office for the delivery of the letter to the person to whom it is addressed, but that contract in many cases is not earned out. But the working classes are sharp enough to know that there is an annual surplus revenue from the Post Office of three millions, and they feel that grievance to which attention has so often been called in this House, that this enormous sum should be "grabbed" by the Treasury. It is a reasonable contention that the Post Office service being so profitable, the surplus increasing at the rate of something like £200,000 a year, should be handed over to the Department for increasing the advantages of the service to the general public, from whom this revenue is raised. It will be of interest if I quote certain statements from letters I have received—statements which I believe to be absolutely correct—in reference to the very late delivery of letters in rural parishes, leaving no margin of time for business men to send replies by the outgoing mail. To meet this grievance there should be an increase in the Post Office staff in rural parishes, that the delivery may be accelerated. I do not say there should be a universal house-to-house delivery, because I know in thinly populated and mountainous districts that would not be possible, but the delivery ought to be largely extended. I would also suggest that facilities should be given to rural post-messengers in the way of pony-carts, which I think would involve but a very small increase in the expense. A case came under my notice from a place a few miles south of Cork, where the fishing industry is of considerable importance. A man offered to contract with the Post-Office to convey the letters by car at the same price that the post runner now charges, but the Post Office declined to make any alteration. I should like a direct declaration from the right hon. Gentleman that he is anxious and willing to put an end to this hap-hazard delivery, and that all letters should be delivered free to those

  117
  to whom they are addressed. Further, I wish he would put an absolute end to the depositing of letters at public-houses and places of call. From my own county I have received many complaints of this kind of thing which I think hon. Members will scarcely credit. A man writes to me that his letters and those of a number of cottagers and farmers are left at a blacksmith's shop merely because it is a place of call, and on one occasion an important letter was nearly destroyed by a spark. Another grievance is that in many cases second post letters are not delivered, and I have a letter here from a man who lives in a village of 1,800 inhabitants—not a straggling, but a compact village—and he complains that the letters arrive by the second post at two o'clock, but no delivery is allowed, and unless the people call for them they do not get their letters till next day. Then, with regard to the question of acceleration, take the case of Surrey. There is a village I know well five or six miles from Godalming and 39½ miles from Waterloo. One of the morning newspapers despatched from London by, say, Friday morning's post does not arrive at this village till nine o'clock on Saturday morning. In County Tyrone there is a small village which is 490 miles from London, and here a newspaper posted in London on Friday morning would be delivered one hour sooner than the newspaper in the village thirty nine and a half miles from Waterloo. These, I think, are cases in which an alteration ought to be made I have had a large number of letters from my own part of the country, and not a few of them were received before I placed on the Order Paper this Notice of Motion. Here is a letter from a clergyman who says that the majority of his poor parishioners have to pay a halfpenny for every letter or circular they receive. A farmer writes from the same place that, so far as he and other cottagers are concerned, there is no delivery from the beginning to the end of the year. Another farmer mentions a case where twenty cottages besides his own have no delivery, although they are only a little over a mile from the post office,
  118
  and he also tells me of a case in which a letter was carried about for three days before the cottager received it, and it was to say that his mother-in-law was dangerously ill. In one of the parishes of Kent all the letters for a particular distinct are deposited at an inn called the Wool-pack Inn, which is a mile from that portion of the parish. Everyone who lives even a few yards outside the radius of delivery has to pay one penny for the delivery of every letter he receives. Then in the North Riding of Yorkshire, not a great distance from Darlington, the letters are sent six miles by rail by arrangement; but, instead of a penny stamp covering the expense, every letter has to bear an additional two-pence. Another case is that of two villages about a mile apart with a direct road connecting them. Midway between them is a large row of cottages where there has never been a free delivery, and all the cottagers have to pay a fee of one penny per letter. Then there is the secretary of a very large Friendly Society, to whom a number of letters are addressed every day. He lives in a village which is a quarter of a mile out of the radius of free delivery, and he only receives letters three times a week, or has to pay a heavy fee for the delivery. I have a letter here signed by thirteen labourers, who state that they have never had a letter delivered free, and they always have to pay an additional fee. Here is a case in which a letter lay in a rural post office for two months, although the person to whom it was addressed lived only about a mile from the office. In the same parish a labourer had a letter sent to him informing him of the death of a relative, and that letter did not get into his hands for several days after the funeral, because he lived a few hundred yards outside the radius. The right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) knows very well what happens in Lincolnshire, because he has taken special pains to secure better facilities for the delivery of letters in that county. From that county I have a letter from a man who farms a thousand acres, and he says that there has never been a free delivery at his farm and twelve

  119
  cottages near to it. There is another case of twenty-two cottages, where letters are never delivered, but are left at a place one mile from the post office, and have to be called for. I will also mention the case of a poor woman who earns her living by sewing. She went to live in a village where there were nineteen houses, and where one penny was charged for the delivery of every letter. The first year she was there she took account of what she had to pay in fees for the delivery of letters, and it was no less a sum than 13s. One other case only will I mention, and that is a parish of two hundred inhabitants, which has never had a free delivery, and farmers can only post their letters once a week on the day when they drive to the market town. These are fair specimens of what takes place in any county all over England. I now come to the question of telegraph offices, and I contend very strongly that there should be increased facilities. In some cases people have to go five, six, seven, and eight miles before they can send a telegram, and I am sure my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson), from the numerous questions which are addressed to him, and from the Memorials and Resolutions he receives, must fully realise that some extension of the telegraphic system ought to be carried out. I think something should be done to reduce these obnoxious guarantees which are required; but I do not go so far as my hon. Friend who has put down an Amendment on that subject. To say that all telegrams in rural parishes should be delivered free is imposing something beyond what we ought to ask for. Then I think the Postmaster General ought, further, to consider the question of savings banks. It is not fair to expect a man who works from six in the morning to six at night to walk five, six, and even seven miles, as it is in many cases, before he can put the money that he is able to save into a savings bank. I think in these days of thrift the Postmaster General should certainly increase the number of savings banks in the rural parishes. A similar grievance exists with regard to money orders,
  120
  and I should like also to mention the rural post boxes, which are an immense convenience to the inhabitants of the rural parishes. This subject has been before the House, and I hope the Postmaster General will see his way to extend the facilities thus offered. Then I think special facilities should be given to the small farmers for sending small parcels containing flowers, fruit, &c., to market, and I believe the Post Office would derive a large revenue if this could be carried out. Take my own county with respect to the facilities afforded by the Post Office. In Norfolk, according to Kelly's Post Office Directory of 1888, out of 680 parishes, 303 had no post office, 551 had no telegraph office, and 521 no money order office. I expect that is a fair sample of other counties throughout England, though there may be a ten per cent. improvement on these figures since 1888, and I say that is not a fair proportion, and that some better arrangement ought to be made. I want to throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that when Memorials are sent to the Post Office, either from hon. Members or the leading people in rural parishes, instead of sending the district surveyor to make inquiries, he should be directed to hold a public inquiry at which evidence could be taken. The aggrieved parties could then state their grievances, and a great amount of satisfaction would result from the change of procedure. I have taken no steps to bring this matter before the public beyond consulting a certain number of hon. Members on both sides of the House; but the Central Chamber of Commerce passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the Motion; and if the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) were here, he would acknowledge that at a meeting he attended in February last at Ely, something like three hundred labourers passed a unanimous resolution in favour of asking for these concessions. If other hon. Members were to present to the right hon. Gentleman a similar list of grievances to the one I have, I expect he would almost go into a lunatic asylum. But I am not going simply to ask my right hon. Friend to inquire

  121
  into this matter. I want to hear from him that some decided and practical action will be taken. I know nobody has given more attention to every grievance brought to his notice, and he has granted a great many facilities for which we are grateful. I do not want the delay of a Select Committee, or anything of that kind, but I want the House to give a decided opinion that these grievances should no longer exist; that practical reforms should be carried out. If my right hon. Friend will arrange for a free delivery as far as possible—I know it cannot be done everywhere—the agricultural labourers and others will be deeply indebted to him. We have the concession of free education, and I think it is a gross hardship and next door to a scandal that these poor working men should have to pay fees of a penny, twopence, or even threepence, for the posting or receipt of their letters. I have not made this Motion as a sort of sham to console my constituents — I mean business, and shall stand firm to my guns, and I trust the House will support me in asking for this simple matter of justice. I move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  MR. FELLOWES: I have much pleasure in seconding the Resolution. I am sure all those hon. Members who represent agricultural districts are deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this matter, for there is a very wide and strong feeling in our rural districts that further facilities should be given for the delivery and collection of letters. I frankly acknowledge the very great courtesy and kindness which we have always received from the Postmaster General, and I must include some of the officials of the Post Office, whom we are often compelled to interview. We do not so much complain of the Post Office and its officials as of the fact that the Treasury are at the bottom of the whole business. The Post Office officials are willing, but the Treasury officials hamper them a great deal in furthering this good cause, and I regret that no representative of the Treasury was present to hear my hon. Friend's remarks. I know a great deal of the difficulty is
  122
  put down to the score of expense, but an enormous revenue comes to this country from the Post Office, and I do not think the country would mind expending a little more in increasing the facilities in rural districts. I say this, because I believe it has been found that, where increased facilities have been provided in rural districts, there has been an extension of business, and no loss has been caused to the Department. In dealing with the question, I want to confine myself to a part of the country which I contend is worse off than any other—I allude to the Fen country. I believe I shall be borne out by Members on both sides who represent these districts in Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, the Isle of Ely, and part of Lincolnshire, when I say that the postal arrangements of these countries are certainly not what they should be. It is said that the districts are sometimes almost impassable, and that the houses are very far apart. That may have been so twenty-five years ago, but now we have gravel roads going very nearly all over the Fens, and the houses are massed together much more than they were. I would also remind the House that the people have to go along these roads for their provisions, and the children have to pass along them to get to school. There is a footpath along the roads, and it would not be a great hardship to compel a walking postman to go along them for the purpose of collecting and delivering letters. During the last few years these districts have become a great fruit and potato-growing country, and employ a large number of labourers for eight or nine months in the year. The fruit merchants are much hampered by the non-delivery and non-collection of letters, and it is a great hardship on these labourers that while they are in the district they cannot receive letters regularly from their relatives and friends in different parts of the country. At present they have to send three or four miles for their letters, and often, if they do not send, the letters are left on the taproom table of a public-house. Sometimes children are sent for them; the children play about, and the letters get lost on the road, and are never heard of again. I can give many in-

  123
  stances, but will only trouble the House with three. The first is a place, in Huntingdonshire, of 350 inhabitants, where there is no delivery from one years' end to another, and the nearest post office is five miles away. Often, if letters are not brought in by some kind neigh hour, they remain for a month, and then they are useless, as the time for transacting the business has gone by. Once a poor woman received intelligence of her mother's death a week after the funeral took place. Another instance is in the Huntingdonshire fens, a place of between two hundred and three hundred inhabitants, where there is no collection or delivery of letters from year's end to year's end. The letters are left at four different inns in the district till called for. I am given to understand—and I thoroughly believe it—that these letters are often left there for a month or six weeks at a time. The other instance is at a place near Short Ferry, where there is no delivery. It is only three miles from the village, and two highway surveyors and the overseer of the poor live there, and unless they expect letters and go in for them they lie in the village post office for days. These are pretty fair instances of what we complain of. It will doubtless be pointed out that the expense would be great; but still, in these days, deliveries and collections ought to be as extended as possible, and if we cannot have a collection and delivery every day in these districts, I think the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to a delivery three days a week, especially as industry has so largely developed in the Fen country. With respect to telegraphs, we were led two years ago to understand that further facilities were to be given in rural districts, and we gathered from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, not that the guarantees were going to be abolished, but that they would not be so high as they were. When, however, we make application for increased telegraphic communication, we are met with the remark that the Post Office are precluded by the Treasury from carrying out the extensions without guarantees. There is a parish of 1,200 inhabitants in Huntingdonshire, where
  124
  the people were very anxious to have telegraphic communication. The Post Office asked for a guarantee of £27 for seven years. The people thought this very hard, as the place was within a quarter of a mile of the great North Road. There was great difficulty in securing the guarantee, and but for some outsiders it could not have been done, and the consequence would have been that a place of 1,200 inhabitants, not far from Peterborough, would have been without telegraphic communication. I would like my right hon. Friend to say, not that the guarantees should be taken away altogether, as I think that is hardly possible, but that he should give greater facilities by reducing the guarantees, so that people in country districts will be able to secure telegraphic communication without paying the enormous guarantees which are called for now. I should also like to ask whether the guarantors are liable for the posts and wires for the new office; and whether the telegrams which come into an office may be taken into account in the same way as those that go out? If he would meet us in that way I believe it would be of the greatest benefit. I do hope and trust that the whole question of rural postal communication, and also telegraphic communication, will be taken up by the right hon. Gentleman before this Parliament ends. If he does take it up, I can assure him that he will receive the greatest kudos from the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, an extended daily delivery of letters and papers ought to be granted to those portions of rural parishes where such delivery is not at present in force, and also that an increased number of savings banks, money order offices, and telegraph offices ought to be established,"—(Sir Edward Birkbeck,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENEAGE: I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes, but perhaps I may be allowed to give some hints to

  125
  hon. Members as to how they may overcome the difficulties in connection with the postal arrangements. The great difficulty with which the Post Office and those who desire to improve the postal arrangements in rural districts have to deal is the want of local knowledge of the Post Office officials, even the district inspectors, in dealing with this question. Having for fifteen years tried to improve the postal administration in Lincolnshire, which was perhaps quite as badas anything which has been described by my hon. Friends opposite, I learned what the difficulties were. The real fact is that these postal arrangements which are now in force were made in old times, when the traffic facilities were very different from what they are now, in the days of the stage coaches, in the days when the main roads ran from north to south, whereas the railways now run in an opposite direction, or from east to west. I wish to point out first that after having for about twelve years tried to deal with this question piecemeal, and in isolated cases, I tried about three years ago to see whether a whole district could not be dealt with. I may tell my hon. Friends that last year I dealt with a district, with the aid and material help of the Post Office—and I wish to give every credit to the Post Office for the valuable assistance which the officials gave me, and also the late Postmaster General—I dealt with a district in which 36,000 letters a week are delivered; and the House will be astonished to hear that more than one-fourth of these letters were either not collected or delivered. I believe that at the present moment there is not one single letter out of these 36,000 which is not either collected or delivered. The real difficulty which arose at the outset, in addition to the want of local knowledge of the inspectors, was the double sorting. Under the old arrangement which existed in the district, the letters were not only sorted in the principal post office, but they were then sent on to the sub-district post office, where they were sorted again, and then sent out by rural messengers. The first thing we tried to do was to get rid of the sub-offices. There we found at once the
  126
  difficulties we had to face. However, they were got rid of; and we abolished many of the district sortings in north and mid Lincolnshire. All the letters are now sorted, either in the mail trains coming down to Lincoln by the Midland Railway from Derby, which is the head office, or at Lincoln. The letters are then sent out in sealed bags direct to each of the sub-offices, either by mail cart, or by rail, which is made use of very extensively. The consequence is that there is no second sorting in the district offices; but, in addition to that, there is this great advantage—whereas, under the old system, every rural messenger started from the district office and walked some four or five miles without delivering half-a-dozen letters, he now starts from the nearest sub-office at once to his work, and that gives him an opportunity of saving much more time in the delivery of the letters; and it also gives him a longer time before returning to collect them in the evening. I will only instance two cases. There was one parish of 350 inhabitants which only had a delivery by a boy, where the letters were left at a house up to last year from time immemorial, and which never had a collection in any way whatever. Under the new system in that parish the delivery of the letters is commenced at half-past eight in the morning and is finished before half-past nine; and the letters are collected and start before half-past three in the afternoon. In another parish which is not many miles distant from the first parish, and which is three miles distant from my house, the messenger sent out from the post office only left the letters on the way and called for them next day. Now that parish has a delivery of letters every day, and sends out its letters regularly like any other civilised region. If hon. Members take up the question, I would strongly advise them to get others who are thoroughly acquainted with the district to join them, and then to cut out a large scheme, as I did. I was afterwards assisted by two other gentlemen, but in the first instance I took it up myself and presented the scheme to the General Post Office. They then at once without any hesitation put me in communication with the surveyor of

  127
  the district, and I must say that a most efficient and painstaking man I found him to be. There is only one way in which a scheme of this sort, as I have told the House, can be carried out—that is by abolishing these sub-district offices, by making the rural messengers start from the nearest office to their work, and by utilising the railways, which have very much altered the whole complexion of affairs as regards postal arrangements. I am told that the whole of the administration in Lincolnshire only costs something like £1,100. I think that outlay is well expended, considering the great convenience it affords to such a large number of people. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment has referred to the telegraphs. I should like to remind him that the telegraphs stand in a somewhat different position from the postal arrangements. We had a Select Committee appointed on the Telegraph and Postal Arrangements two years ago, and that Committee reported that the Postal Authorities should give facilities for a penny post to every village throughout England, whether it pays in that particular village or not. On the other hand the telegraphs were a commercial undertaking, and we are bound to expect a certain amount of profit from them; and, therefore, I, for one, should not like to mix up the two; and I would advise the hon. Members to keep them entirely distinct. But I do hope my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General will give a sympathetic answer to the Motion which has been made, and endeavour to carry it into effect, and thus extend the very great benefits which I believe Lincolnshire has, as a general rule, been enjoying during the last two years.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I first wish to put myself right with the Postmaster General. I desire to pay the highest tribute not only to him but to his Office, and I say this: Having carefully watched for many long years the annual Reports of the Postmaster General, I can come to no other conclusion than this—that it is a splendid service, and, on the whole, magnificently worked; but, excellent as it is
  128
  I venture to think that there is room for improvement. If there is any one complaint which we have a right to urge it is this—the inequality of the service. I think that in the Metropolis we have a great deal too many deliveries. I believe it would be a great blessing to us if there were not half the number of deliveries in the day. At the same time we feel that there are many rural districts where there is an undoubted grievance. I do not think, as a matter of principle or policy, it is right that the taxpayers of the country should not derive equal advantage from the Post Office service. I have always contended that the Post Office Department exists primarily for the work of the sending and the delivery of letters, and that, according as the Post Office is constituted, it is not the primary object of the institution that it should be a tax-gathering, machine. It is to me no sufficient reason to say in the case of such and such a village—"We cannot give you the facilities you ask because the number of letters would not justify us in incurring the expense." I defy you on any occasion to find the smallest ground for complaint with regard to the deliveries in any urban district. It is purely an agricultural and rural grievance. I may be asked, and the Postmaster General may fairly say—"Whatdo you want, and what is the expense of the reform you desire to carry out in the Post Office Department?" lam one of those who are not prepared to give a definite answer to that question. It is a Departmental question, and I am not prepared to say what would be the amount of the expense of giving full effect to this Resolution. As I read the Amendment of my hon. Friend, he only asks that there should be an extended daily delivery of letters and papers. That, I apprehend, means that there should be a reasonable extension—not that in every single isolated district every individual house should necessarily be visited daily by the postman. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House called attention to the fact that the introduction of the railway system had made a material change in the condition of things, and

  129
  had assisted in many cases in the rearrangement of postal conveniences. But there is another thing which has happened which is a great reason for that reform, and that is the education which we have given to the people. One of the first immediate results of that education has been to increase the amount of the reading and writing, of letters and newspapers; and there is a greater demand for these facilities. I contend that if we want to raise the condition of the people in the rural districts we must give them largely-increased facilities for the reception and sending of letters and newspapers. My hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment alluded to the practice prevailing in rural districts of sending the smaller articles of agricultural produce by means of the Parcel Post. We are now engaged in increasing the number of small holdings and allotments. We want to see the cultivation of all kinds of fruit, flowers, and vegetables. We want to see the growth and production of many articles of produce which are best used in their freshest condition—fruit, and flowers, and eggs, and vegetables; and all these things require to be readily sent. We cannot do full justice to the small holders and the holders of allotments, whom we are creating by legislation, unless we give them ordinary facilities for easily getting rid of the produce of their land. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that he will take this matter into his consideration, and that he will deal with it thoroughly. The views which have been placed before him to-day will very clearly show him the feeling which exists in respect to this matter. There is one thing more to which I might draw attention, and it is this: the necessity for increasing the number of Post Office Savings Banks. We have been preaching thrift to the people, and telling them how to save. Surely if we are doing that, we ought to give them facilities for saving. I should like to see the Post Office Savings Banks largely increased in number, so that they might exist not only in the larger and more important villages, but in the small villages, no matter what might be their size. I do
  130
  not wish to detain the House, but I do think that a case has been made out. I think a case has been made out not in the interests of the urban districts, for they have as complete delivery and as accurate arrangements as human ingenuity can devise, but in the interests of our rural parishes. It is for them we speak, and I hope we shall not have spoken in vain to-night.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: Belonging to one of the uncivilised regions where, instead of having a post twice a day, we are extremely thankful to get a post three times a week, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. I do not in any way blame my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, who has done a very great deal for us in the West of Scotland, and I know that he was willing to do a great deal more; but there was, some way or another, a hitch; for when the postal authorities had arranged and made agreements with the Railway Companies in their endeavour to improve the postal facilities in the West of Scotland, for some reason or another the matter was abruptly terminated. We have during the summer an accelerated postal service, but that only lasts for three months in the year. I know that my right hon. Friend was very anxious to make that service last all the year round, because it came to my notice that large extensions of postal arrangements had been devised, and were to be carried throughout the whole of the Highlands; but they all depended upon this one main route. We thought and hoped that the postal authorities, having been satisfied with the arrangements of the Railway Companies, we should have the advantage of the proposed acceleration; but, unfortunately, all of a sudden, after things were going very comfortably, we came to a deadlock, and we were told that for some financial reasons the thing could not be carried out. I am not blaming the Post Office. I cannot expect that any addition of this sort can be carried out so long as the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon the Post Office as one of the large

  131
  branches of his revenue. I think, considering that the Post Office is a monopoly, the first duty of that service is to have a fair service throughout the country, and then to pay a fair dividend on the money that is laid out by the Treasury. After that is once paid, then the spare money should be used in increasing and enlarging the postal facilities throughout the whole of Great Britain. I am strongly of opinion—and have been for many years—that the Post Office should not be looked upon as a sort of milch-cow for the Treasury; but that the first thing should be that an adequate service should be given to the whole country, and that those places that are more remote should be practically assisted and paid for by those places where there is a larger amount of money earned by the Post Office, and in that way that the richer districts ought to help the poorer ones. I am sure I might almost apologise to my right hon. Friend for the great amount of trouble I have personally given him in urging the claims of one place and another upon his notice; but I do not wish to enter into details of that sort. All I hope is that this matter will be treated by the Treasury in a more generous spirit than they have yet done.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I hope hon. Members who take a deep and very well-known interest in this subject will pardon me if I rise at this comparatively early period, in order to deal with the important matters which have been put forward by my hon. Friend (Sir Edward Birkbeck) and by those who support him, because perhaps I may be able to say something that will relieve other hon. Members from fulfilling the duty that presents itself to them, of making further representations on this matter. I both understand and greatly sympathise with those who are dissatisfied with the inadequate service afforded to the districts which the hon. Members who have spoken represent. I have a vivid recollection of country districts where the postman turns upon his heel
  132
  at a certain point, and where the scattered hamlets or farms beyond are never visited by one of Her Majesty's servants. And it is certainly a pleasure to me if I have been able in any of these particulars to relieve a felt want and to meet fairly the representations that are constantly made to me, with great kindness and fairness, by hon. Members who represent these rural districts. So far from it being a trouble and annoyance, it is one of the pleasures of the office I have the honour to hold that it brings me into such constant connection with hon. Members in all parts of the House, who enable me to understand the wants of their districts; and if hon. Members will make known the precise wants that are present to their minds, either to me or to the officers of the Department, who, I know, are constantly ready to hear such representations, a great deal may often be done to remove felt grievances before they reach an acute point. One thing I may most usefully say is that neither in the matter of postal facilities, nor in telegraphic extension have we been resting on our oars. These extensions have not for the most part been done by large measures, but by constant attention to the various post offices, however small. The position is reviewed when vacancies occur in accordance with the advance of business, and day by day many cases, sometimes scores of cases, are dealt with in which increased facilities are given. In this way a very considerable extension has taken place, the figures of which will probably surprise the House. Taking the last ten years, there has been an actual extension in the number of savings banks and money order offices of 3,550 throughout the Kingdom. Since 1881 there have never been less than 245 in one year, and the number has reached 486 in a year; while in the present year, since the 1st January last, the rate of increase has been even larger. Within the last five months no fewer than 193 have been added, so that if the rate obtains throughout the year there will be 450 offices added throughout the country. Certainly it cannot be said that in this particular we are doing nothing. I may say that savings bank and money

  133
  order offices are always opened together, because they are conveniently worked together, and the activity of the postmaster is stimulated thereby, because they are paid commission on the business done by them. I happened yesterday, quite by chance, to see a paragraph in a newspaper which summarises the increase of the expenditure upon the postal and telegraph services in the last ten years. It was certainly a newspaper favourable to the present Government, and therefore gives prominence to recent figures; but I may say the growth has been continuous, both in the six years during which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office and in the years of office of the present Government. In 1881 £5,386,000 was expended on the Post Office, whereas in the year 1892 the estimates amount to £9,316,000—that is to say, an increase of fifty per cent. in these ten years in the money spent on the postal and telegraphic services. The items which form that total show that neither the Post Office Department nor the Treasury—if it is desirable to contrast them—have been backward to extend the facilities; but as several hon. Members have perhaps ascribed the delay in granting increased facilities to the action of the Treasury, it is right for me to say that since I have held my present office in no one instance I can remember has the Treasury objected to increased telegraphic and postal facilities in any locality. That is not where the Treasury comes in. Of course, in questions of subsidies to Railway Companies and of scales of wages, the financial department must be consulted; but the matter of increased delivery, and so forth, is entirely within the discretion of the Post Office. I will not deny that the question of the service being remunerative operates with the Department in considering whether or not an extension shall be given. That rule, however, is administered in a liberal spirit. Formerly the calculation was made that each letter cost in the local service one halfpenny to the Revenue; but now it is estimated at three farthings, the other farthing being left to bear all the cost of the letter before it reaches the actual
  134
  district of delivery. Therefore, there is no idea in these country parishes of making money for the Post Office; but it is desired that the receipts should somewhat approximate to the expenditure. I can assure the House there has been no expectation that the receipts will be adequately remunerative, only the expenditure must not be such as to involve real and considerable loss to the Revenue. I should now like to mention what the extension of the telegraph has been, for that also will, I think, surprise the House. The number of new telegraph offices opened in the United Kingdom during the last ten years is 2,722. The yearly additions have varied from 220 to 349, and this year the number of additional offices will be more than 400. The question of the guarantee has been touched upon, and the hon. Member for Canterbury has a well-known opinion that no guarantee should be insisted upon. The result of that would be that it would be very difficult indeed to draw the line as to how far these telegraphic extensions should go. If there be no measure as to how far these offices should be self-supporting, it is hard to say how far down we should not be obliged to go to carry out extensions. The terms for extension have been made much more liberal. Whereas a Sinking Fund was expected to defray the capital expenditure, nothing more is now required than that the yield should be probably sufficient for the maintenance. In such a case no security is asked; but the guarantee, when asked for, is not of a large amount, and the fact that six hundred offices are now open upon that footing shows that considerable advantage has been taken of that expedient. Of course, a great advantage has been given by the provision in the Post Office Act of last year, whereby Local Authorities are empowered to guarantee the cost of a telegraph office. I have a Bill now before the House to extend that system to Scotland and the Channel Islands, which unfortunately were not provided for in the former Act, and I hope hon. Members will give facilities for the passing of that Bill, which is very much desired. An hon. Member says that

  135
  telegrams ought to be delivered free. Telegrams must be always more or less of a luxury; and if they were to be delivered free, no matter how far from a telegraph office they have to travel, it would be an undue cost to the country; and at this moment when, unfortunately, the Revenue is not growing, I venture to think, with the concessions that have been made, by which the cost of the telegram is only sixpence, and the porterage at the rate of sixpence a mile, the public must rest contented for a while. I wish to show the House that I thoroughly appreciate both the friendly spirit in which the matter has been brought forward and the great importance of the subject. Since I have held my present office one of the matters that has been occupying my attention is the great desirability of giving increased postal facilities to rural districts. I have in my mind a scheme which I think is capable of being worked out to remedy to a considerable extent the undue hardships that are felt by poor people who live a long distance from the nearest post office, and do not know whether or not their letters arrive unless some kind neighbour mentions the fact to them, and who may be deprived of information as valuable to them in their humble sphere as it would be to us in ours. In France there is a system by which, in sparsely-peopled districts, the Post Office messenger travels through one part of the district on one day of the week and through a second part on another day of the week, so that, though the number of letters on any day may not amount to more than a score, and would not justify a daily delivery, and though in a district so scattered as the Moorlands it would be impossible for a man to travel three or four miles to deliver a single letter, such a scheme might be worked so as to relieve a number of districts where considerable hardship is felt; and at all events, if that rule were adopted, there would hardly be a house which would not be reached in the course of a week. A good deal has been said about the unsuitability of public-houses as places where letters are left. One hon. Member said a blacksmith's shop was not a suitable
  136
  place, but in my experience I have found it very often a most popular place, When letters are left at the public-house, or at the smith's shop, it is generally by the desire of those to whom they are addressed; and the payment of a penny or twopence for special delivery is also a matter of private arrangement. I admit that there is an apparent hardship in such cases, but of course the Post Office cannot deal with them unless they are brought specifically to its notice. In estimating, the amount of a guarantee for a telegraph office, it is not practicable to reckon the messages received, because that would be counting them twice over, as they are counted from the places from which they are sent out. The early delivery of letters at places hundreds of miles from London is rendered possible by the rapidity of the night mail trains from London, and the hour of delivery at places near London is dependent upon the hour of departure from the district offices. These are matters of detail, but it is by attention to details that the whole service is improved. A spirit of zeal, and even of ambition, animates the officers of the Department, and there is a determination that our Postal Service shall be the best in the world. Of course it can be improved; and "if we are spared," as they say in Scotland, we hope to be able to do still more to improve it. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend, who has expressed such confidence in the Department, to leave such matters in our hands, and not to trouble the House to divide upon the question.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this question with so much ability will have any reason to complain of the general tenor of the statement made by the Postmaster General. I believe that the Telegraph Service, as a rule, has been conducted on commercial principles, and that efforts have been made to balance the revenue and the expenditure. The Telegraph Service only just pays its way—at present, I believe, there is a small deficit—and, therefore, I cannot join the hon. Mem-

  137
  ber for Canterbury in calling upon the Postmaster General to extend the Telegraph Service to all parts of the country without a guarantee, or to give a free delivery. But with the Post Office the case is different. For many years there has been a great and growing surplus Revenue paid over from that Department to the Treasury. From a Return which was laid before the House at my instance, it appears that the net Postal Revenue has risen from £1,400,000 in 1869–70 to £2,000,000 in £1876–7, and to £3,000,000 in 1884–5; and that surplus Revenue has risen considerably during the last five or six years. I have frequently urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote a larger portion of the net Postal Revenue to improvements in the Postal Service, and, indeed, during the last few years a considerably larger sum has been granted. In his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the reduction in the net Revenue amounted to something like £600,000. But having carefully gone into the Estimates of the Post Office and the various Services connected with it, I am unable to accept that statement of the right hon. Gentleman as altogether accurate. The net Postal Revenue of the present year is about £200,000 or £300,000 less than it was a few years ago, but it is about £350,000 more than it was at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office. During the last six years the Chancellor of the Exchequer has derived £2,400,000 in excess of the net surplus Revenue received during the six years of the previous Government. There is, therefore, a large margin for future improvements in the service. All improvements must cost money, and cause a reduction pro tanto in the net Postal Revenue; but although they may for two or three years throw a burden on the Treasury, at no distant date they will bring in an increased Revenue, and the money devoted to them may be considered as a profitable outlay. That at all events, I think, has been the experience of almost everyone who has been at the Post Office. I would, therefore, strongly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forego
  138
  a still larger amount of surplus Revenue in order to effect those improvements in the Service in rural districts which are so much desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would point out that when the late Mr. Fawcett came into office in 1880 he entered into some arrangement with the Prime Minister that he should be allowed to spend a certain proportion of the net Revenue yearly in the improvement of the Service. In consequence of that arrangement, the net Postal Revenue remained almost stationary during his term of office. For my part, I think this is the best arrangement that could be made. It would enable the Postmaster General to meet the demands of the public better than at present, and to take in hand the improvements which are most required in their order of importance. It would also insure to the Treasury the same surplus Revenue year by year that it has been accustomed to receive. Should this plan be adopted, I believe that not only will the requirements of the rural population be met in the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but that it will by increasing the Revenue, pay for itself in the long run. My hon. Friend has done good service by bringing the question before the House, but I think after the statement of the Postmaster General it will not be necessary to divide the House upon it.
  SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: The importance of this question is so great, especially to all rural districts, that I do not think I should be doing my duty if I did not make a few remarks with regard to it. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General knows very well that the towns and large villages have no cause whatever to complain. It is the scattered rural populations which suffer so much with regard to the delivery of letters, and who are anxious to know what is being done in the House to-night. I give my right hon. Friend every credit in regard to his most courteous and considerate statement. He has told us that in the last ten years there has been an increase of savings banks to the number of 3,550,

  139
  and of telegraph offices to the number of 2,752; but what has been done in that way is vital, but not so vital as giving increased facilities to the rural districts to receive their letters. I believe, especially this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious to conserve as much money as he is able; but the House has a right to demand for all the poor people throughout the country that for every letter stamped with a penny they shall have the full benefit of that penny by the certainty of receiving that letter. My right hon. Friend said he was anxious to go farther than he has done in increasing the rounds in various districts; but he also stated that there should be only one man to go to particular districts once a week.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Of course, I said that was in extreme cases.
  *SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: I am afraid that there are a large number of extreme cases. At this moment I could name many people who live at least a mile or a mile and a half away from the places where the postmen have to go, and who have to do without their letters or make arrangements forgetting them as best they can. If, therefore, this Motion is not carried, the people in the rural districts will come to the conclusion that it is intended to do nothing for them. This is a question which is agitating the country, and I venture to urge upon my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury that he could with great propriety accept this Motion, and, if I might say so, I think it is his duty to do so. Unless that is done, the people in the rural districts will conclude that it is not intended to do anything.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I have been pleased with the generous spirit manifested by the Postmaster General in his reply, but I wish that he had gone a little further, and extended his generosity to the more neglected rural districts. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to telegraph extension were characteristic of the old régime, when he said that action was
  140
  taken in cases where there was a prospect of return for outlay. But in the case of a great public debt with a large surplus, it ought not to be a question of that nature. The return is bound to follow the facilities, and, as I have said before, any private business conducted with the extreme caution of the Post Office Department would soon be ousted by competitors. In the smaller towns in the country I think that the hours of telegraphic business on Sundays should be extended, as at present it is often impossible to get a reply on the same day. As to postal facilities in rural districts, I can confirm many of the remarks which have been made with regard to the isolation of these districts. In some cases there is not a delivery of letters for several days—a condition of affairs not creditable to the period. Such a state of things is more characteristic of the backwoods of America. We ought not in the county of Sussex, for instance, to have villages which have only two deliveries per week. Again, post offices ought to be more generous to the poorer people in certain districts in supplying facilities for them to post their letters. I know a district inhabited by two hundred and fifty persons who have no opportunity of posting letters except by walking a mile or more, or alternately keeping the letters twenty-four hours until the postman arrives. To the request that a pillar-box should be erected, the Department replied that the amount of profit was not sufficient to justify this extension of benefit to the public. I think, too, that in the case of towns with ten or twenty thousand inhabitants the telegraph stations ought to be divorced from business establishments. The present system is very disadvantageous, and often leads to transactions which are not creditable to persons in official positions, and which often injuriously affect the trade of the district. There is one town in my mind where certain of the inhabitants are in the habit of sending their telegrams to an office several miles away in order that their business transactions may possess a privacy not possible in their own district where the postmaster is a competitor in the trade. This is,

  141
  I think, an evil which could be remedied by a comparatively small outlay, and the change would greatly benefit the general community.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Hon. Members who have addressed the House on this subject seem to be under the impression that the Post Office has got considerable funds which it can dispense with generosity, and that the disposal of that fund can have no adverse effect upon the taxation or revenue of the country. But I wish to remind the Committee of one duty which seems to have been forgotten, and it is that when the Estimates and Revenue for the year have been settled there should be no alteration made so as to produce a deficit at the end of the year. I know that many of my hon. Friends who are pressing this Motion would regret with the Government that the effect of repeated Motions of this kind should end in there being a deficit. That is never considered creditable to any Administration. I wish to remind the Committee that we have already accepted a Resolution of considerable importance. We have accepted a Resolution—and we intend to give effect to it—that lighthouses and coastguard stations should be placed in telephonic and telegraphic communication. Hon. Members will be aware that this will involve a strain on the telegraph revenue, and the Government will be obliged to bring in a Supplementary Estimate to enable them to give effect to the decision of the House. The House will see from what I have observed that there is already a considerable strain upon the Post Office Revenue; and a right hon. Gentleman opposite has further called attention to the position of the Post Office Revenue generally, and has shown that during the last two years there has been a diminution of the surplus revenue by some £300,000. That will be a constantly-decreasing surplus, and I think we should soon reach that point of equal expenditure and revenue which the right hon. Gentleman desires to see. It is my duty to look at this Motion from the point of view, not
  142
  simply of general policy, but also of the Revenue of this particular year, and we must, I say, be extremely careful in seeing that the Revenue should be adequate to meet the expenditure. Let us by all means go forward in what is called a generous policy with regard to the Post Office, if we can; but let us make some provision for that policy in the Estimates of the year. I think I should frankly tell the Committee that as Chancellor of the Exchequer I cannot give my assent to any such increased expenditure as would imperil the small margin of the present Estimates. It has been suggested that the Government should accept the Motion with the exception of the latter part of it referring to savings banks, money order offices, and telegraph offices. If hon. Members can accept the general declaration of the Postmaster General and of the Government that much has been done in this direction, and that it is unnecessary for the House to make any further affirmation in regard to the policy already declared, the Government would accept the Motion in this amended form—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, an extended delivery of letters and papers ought to be granted to those portions of the rural parishes where such delivery is not at present in force."
  We should then carry out the general policy which has been indicated, and I say that while during the present year we proceed cautiously in that direction, I hope it will not be necessary to introduce any considerable Supplementary Estimate which the Revenue would not bear. I think the House will, under the circumstances, consider the offer I have made fair, and I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not go to a Division. A proposition has been laid down that telegrams ought to be delivered free of cost. But there are many young men who send telegrams rather than write letters, and if a young gentleman desires to send a telegram to a country house some five miles from the telegraph station, I do not think—and the House will surely agree—that the cost for the carriage of the telegram should be met at the country's expense. That is a kind of annexe to the views of my hon. Friend, which we can scarcely be

  143
  expected to accept. We accept the general view of an extension in the delivery of letters in rural parishes, under the reservations which I have thought it my duty to place before the House.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: While concentrated communities like Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester can bring pressure to bear in order to obtain privileges in lieu of the taxation which is extracted from them by the various ingenious forms of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), it is different in the rural districts, where the population is scattered. The people have little organisation; and, therefore, it is the duty of the Postmaster General not merely to give facilities to the large and concentrated towns, but also in the case of applications from the scattered rural districts. And, further, he should give directions to his Inspectors and Superintendents that they should themselves discover and report deficiencies in postal accommodation. There are many hamlets with neither post office, savings bank, or money order office, and I know of one two miles from the railway where the morning mail arrives at seven o'clock of the evening, leaves at half past eight, and the only postal accommodation here is the delivery and collection of letters at half-past ten in the morning. I think that wherever there is an elementary school there should also be a post office, for if the Education Department think fit to sanction a public elementary school, I think the Post Office might reasonably deem it their duty to afford postal, savings bank, and money order facilities. As to the question of the delivery of telegrams, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in his contention that the country should not bear the cost of porterage for five, six, or seven miles. I think it is monstrous that there should be large villages without a telegraph office, and where the population has to prepay four, five, and six shillings before they can send a telegram. I venture to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Post-
  144
  master General that wherever there is a village or community of 1,000 or 1,700 people there should be a telegraph office in their midst.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Does the hon. Member know of such a village where there is not?
  MR. T. ELLIS: Certainly I do. I could name a large number, and there are two or three in my own constituency. In the case of one village, with a population of 2,000 people, there is only a telegraph office at the railway station, and the station master can only send off telegraph messages at his convenience. I know of another large village where I cannot send a telegram unless I prepay six shillings. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to act on these lines—first, that in every place where there is a public elementary school there should be a post office, savings bank, and money order office; and, second, that villages containing a population of 1,000 and over should be provided with a telegraph office in their midst. Another thing I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is the need of more pillar boxes, in rural districts especially. I sincerely hope that the Motion will not be mutilated as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests, but that it will be accepted as it now stands. In my opinion, it is one of the primary duties of the State, especially when it makes a profit of two or three millions a year out of the Post Office, to afford every possible postal and telegraphic convenience to the populations of the scattered villages throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the Motion in its entirety.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not rise to deal in detail with the Amendment, but merely to make an appeal and give an explanation to the House. The appeal I have to make is in reference to the general business of the House. It

  145
  will, I understand, be just possible to keep within the law by passing the Vote on Account on Monday night. If the Vote is not passed before the House adjourns I do not propose to put it down as the first Order on Monday, because I feel that hon. Members from Ireland who desire to discuss the Irish Education Bill have a right to the earlier hours of that evening, and that it will not be fair that a Debate in which they are interested should be postponed until a late hour in consequence of any individual Member or group of Members. I propose, then that the Irish Education Bill shall be the first Order on Monday, and the Vote on Account the second, if it is not passed to-night. On Monday, if it should be necessary to postpone the Vote on Account till then, I shall move the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule. I think, however, that it would be far more convenient to pass the Vote to-night. ("No, no!" and "Hear, hear!") I merely desire a declaration, but the Vote on Account must be passed to-night or on Monday. With regard to the Motion before the House, it appears to me that we might now come to a decision upon it. The Postmaster General has explained the enormous strides that have been made by the Post Office during the last few years—strides increasing in magnitude each successive year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had almost led the House to believe that the strides made by the Post Office previous to 1885 were greater than they had been since, but that was not the fact. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his general agreement with the first part of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Sir E. Birkbeck), and the Government were perfectly ready to accept it, leaving out all the words after "force," and inserting the qualifying phrase "as far as possible" after the word "ought." It would then read as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House an extended daily delivery of letters and papers ought, as far as possible, to be granted to those portions of rural parishes where such delivery is not at present in force."
  146
  I suggest that the Resolution in this form will meet the views of the House generally, and that we should now proceed to vote upon it.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: Although I attach great importance to the Resolution as it stands, I am ready to accept the alteration suggested by my right hon. Friend.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to-night, as he always does when a matter affecting the interest of all classes arises, raised a plea of economy. The misfortune is that the right hon. Gentleman lavishes all his extravagance upon the Army and Navy. The Post Office system is a huge monopoly in the hands of the State, and we are therefore entitled to demand that every possible facility shall be given to the public. Both the telegraph and postal system are now a matter of daily necessity, and that being the case I think the Postmaster General should have a freer hand in his endeavours to meet the postal requirements of the country. There have been few opportunities during the present Parliament for bringing before the House such Motions as that of the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Birkbeck), and I am glad the Government have to some extent accepted it. I hope it is only the beginning of greater things in connection with the postal and telegraphic service in rural and out-of-the-way districts. In my opinion, this discussion will be eminently serviceable, but I protest against the tone of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) in pleading parsimony and the interests of the Exchequer in connection with a matter of this sort which affects the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people, when millions are voted away for other purposes against the real wish of the country.
  *MR. MORTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House a question with regard to his statement.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think a question of that sort should be interjected into the present Debate.
  *MR. MORTON: Well, I want to say a word about the Resolution before the House, although I have refrained so far in the hope that we should have got to the Vote on Account before this. There is no doubt we should have done so if the Government had cared to influence their own supporters, because there can be no doubt that this evening has been mainly taken up by what may be called an electioneering Debate. I take as much interest in this question as any other Member, and during the discussion on the Budget Resolutions I expressed my strong opinion that the profit derived from the Post Office should be expended in improving that service all over the United Kingdom. Now I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has consented to accept the Resolution in a modified form, to the effect that we are to have an extended delivery of letters in the rural districts as far as possible. All mention of the savings bank and money order offices and telegraph offices is to be dropped. I am not much concerned about the savings banks or the money order offices, because agricultural labourers have not much money for either of those things, but I think telegraph offices should be included in the Resolution, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to do so.
  MR. EDWARD HOLDEN: It appears to me perfectly certain that not much good will be done if the words proposed to be inserted in the Resolution are agreed to. I merely rise to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are very dissatisfied with the way in which he has treated this question.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment in the form suggested by the Treasury Bench, because the insertion of the words "as far as possible," and confining it to the simple delivery of letters and papers will have the effect of making it absolutely useless. I think it has been shown that rural parishes are badly dealt with by the Post Office, and I have often had to make application to the Postmaster General with reference to in-
  148
  creased postal facilities in mining centres. When representations are made to the Post Office as to wants in rural parishes, or in mining districts, there comes the official reply that the right hon. Gentleman will cause inquiries to be made, and will, if possible, extend the desired facilities. But we find that stereotyped answer is the only result, unless we raise a discussion in this House. I had occasion a few weeks ago to write to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Ogmore Valley, where the postal facilities are very meagre indeed, and I had the stereotyped reply; but I have heard nothing since. It may be that the House will permit the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer now, for I cannot attach much importance to that official reply. In these mining districts very considerable inconvenience often arises from want of telegraphic communication—mining accidents sometimes occur. The Ogmore Valley is in the very centre of Glamorganshire, divided into two districts, Nantymoel and Tondu; and should a mining accident occur near Tondu there is no way of sending a telegraphic communication for assistance, except by going to the small agricultural town of Bridgend. I do not want to detain the House from a Division, but I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries in regard to this particular district?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Inquiries are now being made. Such inquiries must necessarily take some time. We have to work one district with another, and possibly the surveyor may be engaged in one district with inquiries before he can go to another. But I know that inquiries are going on in the valley to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. EVANS: I am glad to hear it; but the demand was made several weeks ago, and inquiry need not take more than two or three days. I am acquainted with the circumstances, and I can say so. It would be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could say when the in-

  149
  quiry will be completed—whether it will be before Parliament ceases its labours for the Whitsuntide Recess or possibly altogether? However that may be, I am glad to hear that inquiries are going on, for I am certain the case is one the House would agree demands immediate attention. It is one of many similar cases, and I would impress upon the House the desirability of doing something to impress upon the Post Office the necessity for making these extensions without waiting for representations to be made through Members for different localities. The Post Office should always be engaged in extending its facilities. It is a great monopoly; it exists for the benefit of the people of the country; it should not be made a source of revenue, and even though in some districts the Service should have to be carried on at a loss, still the people in rural and mining districts should enjoy all the facilities the Service is able to offer.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Without doubt many improvements are required in our Telegraph Service. It is impossible, for instance, under present arrangements to send a legal document by telegraph; but this is done in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions. A person who desires to send a legal process of any sort can go to a telegraph office, with a Magistrate in attendance, and the document is telegraphed through to its destination, where another Magistrate attends. The two Magistrates certify to the arrangement, and the document reaches its destination in a few minutes. This mode of transmitting legal documents is a most convenient proceeding for all concerned. Its introduction in Queensland was due to the initiative of a gentleman whose name has been frequently mentioned in a recent discussion, Sir Samuel Griffith, and it has been adopted throughout the Australasian Colonies, and with no difficulty whatever. There is also a want of a system of "urgent" telegrams, as they are called. For instance, suppose there is a political meeting going on in some place and
  150
  the whole staff of the local post office—one operator perhaps—is engaged in sending long press messages that may take one hour in transmission; an accident of some kind happens, and assistance, medical or otherwise, is required, but the long telegram must go on. In other parts of Her Majesty's possessions there is an "urgent telegram" system under which telegrams paying high rates take precedence of others. Now, with regard to the proposed amended form of the Resolution, I think it will prove altogether ineffective, for it binds the Post Office to do nothing whatever. What are the facts? Those of us who live in country districts are desirous of having fair means of communication with other parts of the country. But in districts where there are from 300 to 500 people there is sometimes no postal communication whatever. We have to pay our own postboy to carry our letters, and if we get a telegram we have to pay four shillings for its delivery. On one occasion I had driven into the country town and met in the street a messenger who had a telegram for me. It was but a few yards from the office, but he would not give it to me unless I paid him a fee of two shillings. There is often a long delay in sending the messages. You may see the messengers plodding along the road, lame perhaps, and there is no thought of consideration for public convenience. I submit the time has arrived when the Post Office should not be the means of collecting Revenue in an indirect way—there should be more elasticity in its administration, and the Revenue from the more populous districts should assist the expenditure in the poorer districts. The Resolution as amended would be of no avail, and, for my part, I should advise taking a Division upon it.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I am quite willing to withdraw my Motion in order that the amended Resolution may be substituted.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Is it possible to so alter the Motion, seeing that already there is an Amendment to it in the name of the hon.

  151
  Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker Heaton)?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is an Amendment which can only be moved in the event of the Motion becoming the substantive Question. Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn? (Cries of "No!")
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I now beg to move, as an Amendment, the addition of the words "so far as it is possible."
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: On a point of Order may I ask, can another Amendment be moved when there is a previous Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Canterbury?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment is at the end of the Motion.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "ought," to insert the words "so far as is possible."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  (11.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 32.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'in the opinion of this House, an extended daily delivery of letters and papers ought so far as is possible to be granted to those portions of rural parishes where such delivery is not at present in force, and also that an increased number of savings banks, money order offices, and telegraph offices ought to be established,' be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to move a further Amendment—
  It being after midnight, the House stood adjourned.
  SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 258.)
  CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th May], "That
  152
  the Clause (Application of Act to Ireland),—(Mr. Barton,) — which was offered to be added on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be read a second time."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I have every desire to assist the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Birkbeck) in proceeding with the Bill, but I think he finds here some little difficulty of procedure. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Barton) suggested a new clause, to which objection being taken, I think there was no objection to it being withdrawn or negatived. He is not here, but I presume in his absence the House may negative it?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If no objection is raised that may be done.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: If the House will permit, I will now move the Third Reading.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think that would be hardly fair to the hon. Member (Mr. Barton) in his absence.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  RICHMOND AND MOUNTJOY PRISONS (IRELAND).
  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: As to the Motion which stands in my name for a Return in reference to Richmond and Mountjoy Prisons, I understand there is no objection to giving the information, but there is an objection in point of form. I would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if that is so, will he be good enough to put down the Motion in the form he desires it to take?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I think it will be more convenient in point of form if a Return is given by the War Office as to expenditure in which that Department is concerned, and I propose to furnish a statement which will, I hope, give the hon. Member all the information he desires.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 300.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. (No. 301.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 315.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 319.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 335.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 339.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 341.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (Ne. 10) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 346.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION).
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 299.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 229.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  HOP SUBSTITUTES BILL.—(No. 159.)
  Order for Second Reading, upon Monday 6th June, read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 279.)
  Order for Second Reading, upon Tuesday next, read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Ordered, That leave be given to present another Bill instead thereof.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 383.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 232.]
  Report to be upon the Table, and to be printed.

  NATIONAL DEBT [CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed,
  "That, for the purpose of the conversion of the securities held by the National Debt

  155
  Commissioners on account of advances made by them under the provisions of 'The National Debt Redemption Act, 1889,' it is expedient to authorise (a) the creation of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund in favour of the National Debt Commissioners for a sum of £13,000,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 2¾ per centum per annum, such charge to be reduced at any time by the issue in money out of the Consolidated Fund to the National Debt Commissioners of any portion of the sum of £13,000,000; (b) the cancelling of all Exchequer Bonds and Securities issued in respect of the advances made by the National Debt Commissioners."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS, 1887 AND 1891.
  Copy presented,—of Regulations made by the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, under Section 2 of "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1891," with regard to the Prosecution of Offences under "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Treasury Minute, dated 23rd May, 1892, upon the development of the Telephone System in the United Kingdom."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders. No. 4 and No. 5, Bills."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]

MOTIONS.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.—(NO. 275.)
Ordered, That Mr. Anstruther be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Superannuation Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That Mr. Biddulph, Sir Richard Temple, and Mr. Storey be added to the Committee."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas)
COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (NO. 3) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Philipps, Bill to amend "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Philipps, Mr. Donald Crawford, and Mr. Joicey.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 380.]
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Cremer, Bill to amend the Law for the Registration of Parliamentary Voters; and for other purposes relating to elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cremer, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Burt, Mr. Pickard, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. James Rowlands.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 381.]
LIBEL BILL.
On Motion of Sir Algernon Borthwick, Bill for the amendment of the Law of Libel, ordered to be brought in by Sir Algernon Borthwick, Sir Albert Rollit, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Willox, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and Mr. Jennings.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 382.]

MOTIONS.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  DR. TANNER: Having in view the backward condition of Public Business, I trust the Government will not on Tuesday next countenance such an idiotic proceeding as a Debate upon the question of adjournment over what is called the Derby Day, and that they will not so assist in the obstruction of Business as to take a holiday because there is a horse race.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.